The San Francisco I know and love having grown up on the Peninsula in the 60s, 70s and worked in SF in the 80s, is gone. The city that once embraced misfits, that prided itself on being different, whose population was socially and economically diverse - is gone. Cities need all sectors of the economy represented in their residents, not just the wealthy. A homogeneous San Francisco would not be a very interesting place to visit or live.
14
Lots of rich white people. That must be a problem.
2
Everyone is coming to Vallejo now. The rent is cheaper and it's turned into a beatnik/ artist community.
Google could start a Ferry system and you would have direct transport to Silicon valley. Abandon the buses.
The homeless problem would be solved if they used the piers in SF and brought in old cruise ships and rented out the rooms to start ups.
The talent would not be lost to other towns. The tribe of Ephraim has spoken.
Google could start a Ferry system and you would have direct transport to Silicon valley. Abandon the buses.
The homeless problem would be solved if they used the piers in SF and brought in old cruise ships and rented out the rooms to start ups.
The talent would not be lost to other towns. The tribe of Ephraim has spoken.
3
San Francisco's problems should not be laid at the feet of the tech workers. City government has enforced an anti-development attitude for decades, despite the limited construction in SOMA and a few other neighborhoods. They insist on maintaining the fiction of a quaint, little city despite the economic boom. Throw in rent control for a large portion of the housing and you get today's mess. The solution is rather simple. Higher density and easier permitting in a number of neighborhoods such as SOMA, Dogpatch and Portero, as well as areas south of the city would ease the rental shortage.
4
We San Franciscans should take a page out of Trump's playbook and just build a Great Wall around the city. Peskin (how many affordable units has he helped finance as a leader of one of the richest cities on the planet?) can lay the first brick. And, of course, let's make Twitter pay for it.
"Volunteer to be decent?" That pretty much says it all for leadership in this town. Other cities build the housing they need. We just don't want to. Height, density, more people... all threats to our charming fishing village.
"Volunteer to be decent?" That pretty much says it all for leadership in this town. Other cities build the housing they need. We just don't want to. Height, density, more people... all threats to our charming fishing village.
3
Look at the photos in the slide show: all young, almost all white, almost all male.
1
Yep, it's a good thing. Don't be jealous.
As a SF native, 4th generation... I don't see the benefits of the tech boom. When Ron Conway of Airbnb, tells the Mayor what to do and long time residents are marginalized and evicted, there's not much to be happy about. I don't know of anyone who thinks that the rising real estate values is worth losing the soul of this once beautiful, liberal city. When our city's Rec & Parks freely installs carcinogen tire rubble fields to please Gavin Newsom's campaign donors: the Fisher bros of the GAP, in spite of enormous opposition... everyone knew the fix was in. Tire rubble fields are OUT DATED technology that carry many risks to health and the environment...yet we have them. What an embarrassment Rec & Parks and our City Hall corruption is... all due to too much tech money.
14
I moved to SF in 1991 and voluntarily moved away 2015. A tech bust won’t fix anything, and will only make the next inevitable boom worse. People in the Bay Area keep thinking that one more bust will return the area to some “happy time” in the past. The tech industry has transitioned from HP to Apple to Uber and short of some kind of Amish revolution sweeping the world - it might be time to admit that the tech industry is here to stay and that the Bay Area is the center.
Each tech bust has put off the unpleasant decisions that have to be made in order to make the region livable. You can’t be surrounded by green belt and stop development of tall buildings in SF because they cast shadows on city parks or block someone’s view. Tech companies need to understand that opting out of public transportation is not a scalable solution. They need to get involved in the messy business of expanding transportation infrastructure for everyone.
The Bay Area like the rest of the America getting by on the infrastructure created with the tax rates of the 50’s and 60’s. The BART tunnel was completed in 1974. In 2016 there aren’t even talks about adding another tunnel.
Each tech bust has put off the unpleasant decisions that have to be made in order to make the region livable. You can’t be surrounded by green belt and stop development of tall buildings in SF because they cast shadows on city parks or block someone’s view. Tech companies need to understand that opting out of public transportation is not a scalable solution. They need to get involved in the messy business of expanding transportation infrastructure for everyone.
The Bay Area like the rest of the America getting by on the infrastructure created with the tax rates of the 50’s and 60’s. The BART tunnel was completed in 1974. In 2016 there aren’t even talks about adding another tunnel.
18
Those who think that building denser ( higher apartment) buildings as a solution to the housing problem, are simply forgetting that San Francisco is not Manhattan or any other city, because we have little, but occasionally, very large things called earthquakes. I would not want to be caught in a 20 story or higher apartment building when a 6 or 7 earthquake hits. No one is really addressing the pink elephant in the room. A lot of properties in this "hot" market areas are sitting empy, because foreign investors are buying them to hide or protect money. Tech is one problem in the city, and if they go the way of the dot commers, I don't think they would be missed. But they are not the only problem that SF has with its real estate market.
6
I thought everyone was supposed to work from anywhere with this technology?
Using one of the gadgets, can I still find a good, affordable, quiet place to eat?
With the high cost of rent, the long hours and lack of benefits, should most 'tech' workers be envied?
Using one of the gadgets, can I still find a good, affordable, quiet place to eat?
With the high cost of rent, the long hours and lack of benefits, should most 'tech' workers be envied?
2
The economics of what is happening in San Francisco differs from what is happening elsewhere by degree only. In every community the most serious cause of income and wealth inequality is the way government chooses to raise revenue. The most appropriate source of revenue is land value because the value of land is directly related to population growth, aggregate demand and the joint public and private investment in infrastructure and amenities. As a result, land comes to have locational advantages that translate into higher land values (or, more accurately, higher potential rental values). The failure to collect as public revenue a significant portion of this value rewards the hoarding of land and investment in land for pure speculation. San Francisco is merely one of the world's worst case examples of how to make a city unaffordable to the majority of working people. What to do? Exempt buildings from the tax base and begin increasing the rate of taxation applied to assessed land values. Over time, land prices will come down, housing supply will expand, and the cost of living will fall.
4
This is richly ironic. Places that are big supporters of open borders and low skill migration bemoaning the migration of skilled tech workers to their city, seeking a better life.
At the end of the day they have no right to love in SF let alone by the coasts. More productive workers who are very skilled and making something for the world are coming and benefitting from spillovers. Blame bad housing policy first. Then maybe just maybe think a little about rival goods.
At the end of the day they have no right to love in SF let alone by the coasts. More productive workers who are very skilled and making something for the world are coming and benefitting from spillovers. Blame bad housing policy first. Then maybe just maybe think a little about rival goods.
6
Say what? Tech makes NOTHING. Rival goods? More like rival GODS.
1
They make nothing? Why is Google trading at over $700 a share?
A disturbing anecdotal trend is long-time SF dwellers leaving. And not just to the suburbs - to another state. When the bust comes, the bedrock of the community -- those who are in the middle classes and who are the activists, teachers, volunteers -- will be eroded and the newcomers here to make their fortune will leave. Not sure what will be left.
12
I'm visiting San Francisco from Frankfurt, Germany, and was surprised by the price of consumer goods, ugly buildings, sky-high rents, and poor public services. For a starter: there is no good public transportation serving the Airport. The Airport! In Frankfurt, it costs 6 euros and 15 minutes for a passenger to board an S-train and go from the city center to the airport (and no more than 15 minutes for anyway to access the S-train from anywhere in the city). Here, the only viable service is Taxi or Uber, which not only cost much more, but are significantly slower, because of the jammed roads. Shouldn't the tech-companies, while trying to make the world more efficient, first make their own city more efficient?
21
It's not their city. They just got here and they're all 23, they don't know from civic-mindedness.
6
We travel in and out of SFO and Oakland all the time using BART, the Bay Area Rapid Transit. I prefer it precisely because traffic doesn't affect it and it is efficient. Consumer goods...like everywhere prices range from ridiculously low to obscenely high. Get out of the high price tourist area and explore the city.
3
Hmm. When I last flew to SF, in 2010, I got onto BART, which took me to downtown SF. Is that no longer in service?
1
Been here 35 years. It is no longer the city I moved to.
It's very sad. What a glorious time it was back then...fluid, a feeling of freedom,
truly diverse, exciting, relatively safe, interesting, affordable, easy to get around,
mostly unfettered. . Some empty spaces, empty lots, quiet streets, with fun and truly wild nightlife if you wanted to go there.
It was everything a city should be.
And 150K fewer people.
It's very sad. What a glorious time it was back then...fluid, a feeling of freedom,
truly diverse, exciting, relatively safe, interesting, affordable, easy to get around,
mostly unfettered. . Some empty spaces, empty lots, quiet streets, with fun and truly wild nightlife if you wanted to go there.
It was everything a city should be.
And 150K fewer people.
14
The outrageous rents in SF would be less upsetting to many people if there were some affordable option within striking distance. But there isn't. Oakland used to be quite affordable but that hasn't been true for at least the past five years. Directly north and south of SF can be MORE expensive. One would have to be commuting from Stockton or Sacramento to see rents other Americans would consider reasonable.
14
The slow burn is about to get hotter. I just found out that an institutional tender offer for my Unicorn stock puts a value on the company (I used to work at) at less than half of what everyone thinks its worth. Most of the options issued in the last two years are underwater, but the option holders don't know it yet. By burning $3 for every dollar earned, the company will be out of money by year end. Then it gets real ugly.
11
In the dot-com bubble days I experienced the soaring trajectory of Quokka Sports, with new hires coming in so fast we were fighting over desk chairs. Incredible hubris. They began with covering round-the-world sailing races, a remote sport just made for internet coverage. It was thrilling to edit that breaking news. And the International Olympic Committee website through the bribery scandal and release of investigation findings. But then they decided to branch into car racing, baseball, and other sports well covered by TV. After my freelancing there, they went public, and the stock fell with a splat. As a former vendor, I got their bankruptcy notices to possible creditors. (Luckily they owed me nothing at that point.) A colleague sent me notice of the office effects auction -- all those Aeron chairs, etc. Hope it all works out for you!
9
Does the author of this story know that San Francisco spends $190,000,000/yr on programs for the homeless? That money covers a population of <7,000. The homeless effectively benefit from the income equivalent of almost $30,000/yr, and it's all tax free. So enough with denigrating the hard working people in the city who finance the taxes that pay for all these services. Let's address the real cause of the city's problems: government ineptitude and ridiculous populist propaganda.
9
Somehow the left thinks that the poor will be better off by destroying the productive elements of society
3
I totally agree with your comment. Except that SF spends 250,000,000 a year on the homeless and despite that,a council person wants to declare the homeless problem a state of emergency to get even more funding!!!!!
2
Frankly, I don't see why people even want to move to San Francisco anymore. It used to be a cauldron of social and cultural experimentation. Now it's just a bunch of overpaid worker drones who don't have the time or the ideas to contribute anything of interest. Drones: Don't confuse having money for a different fancy restaurant every night with changing the world, because even if you make all your fancy reservations using the coolest "disruptive" new app, you're just helping some rich person get richer and making the culture more monochrome. Class and cultural apartheid is as pernicious as racial apartheid, and really, you'd still be happy and productive living in San Jose or Walnut Creek--places where the artists, the non-programmer immigrants, the political organizers, the mind-benders and the wild-eyed wouldn't go even if they could. Just because someone leaves a bicycle unlocked is no reason to steal it, and in the same way, just because some people can't outbid you on real estate is no reason to kick them into the gutter.
28
Do property taxes rise just because a billion dollar Company starts up and workers make tons of money? If not, Blame the property owners for setting ungodly rental rates.
1
You don't understand how rental rates work. They are no just SET because someone's greedy, although there is that too, big time.
Someone sells a building. They get the most they can for it, and in SF that's a lot. The person who bought it now has to pay a huge mortgage, so renting it will be determined by the mortgage requirement. That's why non-profits try to buy their buildings, so they're not at the mercy of the capitalist system as non-owners.
Someone sells a building. They get the most they can for it, and in SF that's a lot. The person who bought it now has to pay a huge mortgage, so renting it will be determined by the mortgage requirement. That's why non-profits try to buy their buildings, so they're not at the mercy of the capitalist system as non-owners.
5
It’s too bad that Google abandoned its slogan of ‘don’t be evil’. They could have been good corporate neighbors to the people of San Francisco.
5
Good article - and I can certainly attest to this first hand, since I live here in San Francisco.
5
The tech boom will end, abruptly, when the next big quake hits, and the infrastructure is severely damaged, numerous citizens killed. New York City's Silicon Alley and other tech centers will be the beneficiaries of this natural disaster.
1
I have the feeling you want this to happen. Dark thoughts.
3
I see the problem as voter complacency. I don’t know if it’s too late for San Francisco but other areas facing the same problem can learn from this. Keep involved and vote in every election. Don’t let the wealthy buy your vote. Electing people who really represent the majority of the population instead of the moneyed class can keep an area livable. Taxes and zoning laws can stop the few from pushing out the many.
As soon as an elected official starts talking about taxing poor and middle class people to give massive tax breaks to a large corporation or a wealthy sports franchise owner, that official soon be recalled or voted out at the earliest opportunity. Public money and public policy should be for the benefit of all (or at least most) of the residents.
As soon as an elected official starts talking about taxing poor and middle class people to give massive tax breaks to a large corporation or a wealthy sports franchise owner, that official soon be recalled or voted out at the earliest opportunity. Public money and public policy should be for the benefit of all (or at least most) of the residents.
3
They say the circus always leaves town...We'll see.
1
Things didn't just happen to get to this point. Decisions were made that not merely allowed but encouraged this, those decisions being lead by Mayor Ed Lee who, I expect, when he leaves office will miraculously make huge amounts of money as a "consultant" or board member of big tech companies.
However, blame does need to be shared by many of the victims, those who complain but fail to organize in a serious and militant way to protect their interests. Yes, big money can buy politicians and lawyers but it can't buy 100,000 people in the streets acting in concert.
For perspective -- and a great alternative for some -- consider moving elsewhere. For instance, I recently took a trip through the Southwest, driving through Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe. By the time I got to El Paso I started to make some notes regarding prices. Las Cruces gas was $1.27/gallon, Albuquerque rent in a newish place a few blocks from the university was $450 for a one bedroom and $800 for a two bedroom, (including WiFi and common areas.) A few miles north you could buy two and three bedroom homes for $200,000, some even less. In Santa Fe nice homes were going for under $300,000. (In El Paso, it was substantially less.)
People in the Bay Area look down their noses at these cities, but I found them quite cosmopolitan, extremely friendly, with many cultural amenities. (Phoenix is another story entirely. If you are considering urban Arizona, skip it and go to Tucson.)
However, blame does need to be shared by many of the victims, those who complain but fail to organize in a serious and militant way to protect their interests. Yes, big money can buy politicians and lawyers but it can't buy 100,000 people in the streets acting in concert.
For perspective -- and a great alternative for some -- consider moving elsewhere. For instance, I recently took a trip through the Southwest, driving through Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe. By the time I got to El Paso I started to make some notes regarding prices. Las Cruces gas was $1.27/gallon, Albuquerque rent in a newish place a few blocks from the university was $450 for a one bedroom and $800 for a two bedroom, (including WiFi and common areas.) A few miles north you could buy two and three bedroom homes for $200,000, some even less. In Santa Fe nice homes were going for under $300,000. (In El Paso, it was substantially less.)
People in the Bay Area look down their noses at these cities, but I found them quite cosmopolitan, extremely friendly, with many cultural amenities. (Phoenix is another story entirely. If you are considering urban Arizona, skip it and go to Tucson.)
8
Lee has been TERRIBLE for SF. Just TERRIBLE. Though the people who make money off his policies wouldn't agree, of course. The so called influx of people mentioned by Pizzeria Delfina's owner are his customers--90% white or Asian
22-35 year olds with disposable income, and boy do they dispose of it. It's sickening. Hardly anyone over 45 left anymore. It's a post collegiate dystopia.
22-35 year olds with disposable income, and boy do they dispose of it. It's sickening. Hardly anyone over 45 left anymore. It's a post collegiate dystopia.
8
There is very little water in the southwest. It's only going to get worse. If you're young and don't have children but want to, please only have one. I use to think it would be great to live to 500, now I'm glad it's a short run.
3
The same story over and over and over again in The NYT. Please, do you have something new to say?
1
“If only there were some way to prevent the haves from having it all.”
Trenchant comment at the end of a good article. Thanks, Ms Hoffmann, and thanks to the Times.
A similar problem arose in Santa Monica over thirty years ago. One difference was that a majority of Santa Monica residents then were renters, so a rent control ordinance was passed. It helped a lot of people at the time.
Isn't greed a sin? Isn't there a reason why it is?
Trenchant comment at the end of a good article. Thanks, Ms Hoffmann, and thanks to the Times.
A similar problem arose in Santa Monica over thirty years ago. One difference was that a majority of Santa Monica residents then were renters, so a rent control ordinance was passed. It helped a lot of people at the time.
Isn't greed a sin? Isn't there a reason why it is?
6
I'm a yuppie male working in tech in SOMA and make over $150,000 a year. However, I live in the Tenderloin because I refuse to pay $3,500 a month to price gouging landlords. It is not tech's fault, but the evil landlords. As a result, I don't see how SF can continue to exist unless private property is abolished in SF or landlord rights significantly curtailed. Fix the tenderloin, increase the tax on Airbnb, and cap profits on rentals and the problem will be solved. My roomate downstairs apt is rent controlled and he pays 700 for the same thing I am paying 1200 for. The city is out of touch with reality. I can barely afford to live here and I am affluent. I have no idea how anyone else can afford to live in this city. I am relocating to LA or San Diego since it is cheaper and for the price of a 1 bedroom in SF you can live on Venice Beach or Mission Beach. I'll move back to SF when I can afford it.
7
I grew up in the Bay Area, and I'm old enough to remember when San Francisco was losing population every decade. (Don't believe me? Check out the city's Wikipedia page for a sourced table or do you own research.) In fact, San Francisco proper lost population in the 1960, 1970, and 1980 Census, going down in population by about 100,000 residents in that 20-year period. That was the era when a new home in Daly City, no matter how quickly constructed the house or foggy the weather, seemed preferable to a clunky Edwardian flat in musty, barely-middle-class Noe Valley.
I know San Francisco has changed quite a lot for Justin Keller, in the "over three" years he has lived there, but rest assured the city was changing quite forcefully for some time before that. I personally don't see rapid change as a virtue, and thus no longer live in California, but, to paraphrase an axiom about the weather in the Midwest, if you don't like what San Francisco is now, wait a few years. Unfortunately, though, the trendline for whether the recent changes are for the best is, in my opinion and those of others, rather downward.
I know San Francisco has changed quite a lot for Justin Keller, in the "over three" years he has lived there, but rest assured the city was changing quite forcefully for some time before that. I personally don't see rapid change as a virtue, and thus no longer live in California, but, to paraphrase an axiom about the weather in the Midwest, if you don't like what San Francisco is now, wait a few years. Unfortunately, though, the trendline for whether the recent changes are for the best is, in my opinion and those of others, rather downward.
4
I had to make the transition of identifying myself as a global citizen to be comfortable in SF as a Black man. I am fortunate to have the education and job that allows that. I don't expect everyone to follow me. It is such a gorgeous city that I love a lot, and so I should have it as long as I can.
The plutocracy that runs the Valley are going to face a commupance. Several well known venture funds cannot raise new funds and are laying off and shrinking. Start-up salaries with engineers with three years of experience making $225,000 a year are being laid off. Can't happen soon enough. Making great products has been replaced by entitlement and greed.
6
The California exodus is hurting many areas of the country. Look at Colorado - housing has escalated to the point that no one can afford places like Denver or even Aurora. Californians come in, raise the price of housing almost overnight, and then vote CA-like laws that have destroyed the state they left. Stop the Californication of the US!
4
Tech bubble burst? How about the next big earthquake?
1
Living in S.F., sometimes I feel like we've been transplanted to Mill Valley and the air of exclusivity is very disorienting and unsettling (is this a citadel or a city?). We own a house in a very decent, working class neighborhood in San Francisco only because my parents helped us put the down payment on the house (as did my grandfather who owned a house in S.F. helped my parents before us). There are many people living in one household in our neighborhood with more than one job and many more cars that come with that household. The transportation system is years behind and can not accommodate the influx in population and is unreliable and unsafe in the poorer neighborhoods. Driving is necessary for us, but is becoming more congested and is very frustrating. As far as renting goes, most of the people I work with rent, and can't even talk about their living situation without a sense of anxiety and have to live outside of the City - so we no longer have their votes. We hope to hold on to our house for our kids sakes because who knows what the workforce will be like in 15-20 years, but right now I feel like a stranger in a strange land and we seem to be asking ourselves more and more "why are we here?"
7
If I own a car that I want to sell or rent and no one wants it, I lower my price to attract customers. If lots of people want it, I raise my price to get the most money I can for it. Most of the comments here seem to want to reverse this basic economic principle when it comes to real estate, and keep the price artificially low, not just in spite of, but because the demand is high. Why shouldn't a property owner who suffered through decades of below market returns when prices were low be allowed to recoup his losses now that demand is up?
5
Yes, there is booming demand due to the tech industry. But the cost of living is a political issue, and is not the fault of tech! The shortsighted NIMBYs and anti-growth activists in the city who have helped pass laws which effectively make it impossible to increase the supply of housing and feckless "progressive" politicians are the ones to blame. The results are predictable. Most of the apartments in the city are rent-controlled and it's very hard to kick people out. Further, you need to go through multiple neighborhood committees if you want to build anything on land you own, not to mention the numerous regulatory agencies you have to navigate. A ton of the land is off-limits for development. The general attitude of the entrenched population is, "I got mine, so who cares about you?" Great overview of this: http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
About the only thing the state has going for from a revenue standpoint is the tech sector. Those unfunded liabilities for "$200k/yr, retire at 55 with full benefits" state workers' pensions won't fund themselves, you know! Of course, the envious attitude present in this article is pervasive in California and California politics. It's only a matter of time until CA's braindead leadership slays the goose that lays the golden egg. Once the companies' margins get squeezed, they will speed up the exodus just as other businesses with lower margins have already. Will someone in CA please turn off the lights?
About the only thing the state has going for from a revenue standpoint is the tech sector. Those unfunded liabilities for "$200k/yr, retire at 55 with full benefits" state workers' pensions won't fund themselves, you know! Of course, the envious attitude present in this article is pervasive in California and California politics. It's only a matter of time until CA's braindead leadership slays the goose that lays the golden egg. Once the companies' margins get squeezed, they will speed up the exodus just as other businesses with lower margins have already. Will someone in CA please turn off the lights?
3
“I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day.“
Oh my. Sorry to offend your eyes, hot shot.
He earned his "right to live in the city" via a system that simultaneously made these folks homeless.
Oh my. Sorry to offend your eyes, hot shot.
He earned his "right to live in the city" via a system that simultaneously made these folks homeless.
7
If you build higher, you better make sure that the streets are wide enough to accommodate the wave of vehicles that will have to get out of your new high-rise neighborhood, in order to get to the high-tech job on the other side of Market Street.
Or build more mass transit.
I miss San Francisco. I grew up there. I remember paying $850 for a two-bedroom apartment in the Inner Sunset, knowing that my neighbor upstairs was only paying $330 for the same space one floor up (he never moved in twelve years). I guess that's all gone now. You can certainly build up, but you will destroy the character of the great neighborhoods.
Seattle is doing the same thing, turning every interesting neighborhood into a series of tall, pastel-colored (or grey) boxes, made of what looks like corrugated iron (oh, so moderne), but they haven't accounted for what having those extra 3 or 4 thousand people will do to traffic.
I work in high-tech up here. I own a nice house in a nice neighborhood. If I wanted to move back to the Bay Area, they'd have to offer me 8 times my current salary for it to be affordable. I'll stay until Seattle starts to resemble San Francisco.
Or build more mass transit.
I miss San Francisco. I grew up there. I remember paying $850 for a two-bedroom apartment in the Inner Sunset, knowing that my neighbor upstairs was only paying $330 for the same space one floor up (he never moved in twelve years). I guess that's all gone now. You can certainly build up, but you will destroy the character of the great neighborhoods.
Seattle is doing the same thing, turning every interesting neighborhood into a series of tall, pastel-colored (or grey) boxes, made of what looks like corrugated iron (oh, so moderne), but they haven't accounted for what having those extra 3 or 4 thousand people will do to traffic.
I work in high-tech up here. I own a nice house in a nice neighborhood. If I wanted to move back to the Bay Area, they'd have to offer me 8 times my current salary for it to be affordable. I'll stay until Seattle starts to resemble San Francisco.
4
I have to say, I have worked in tech off and on in the Bay Area for almost 30 years. It's a boom and bust business, which is very cyclical. It is also very very age-ist. I am not sure why people think they should be able to live in SF. Since I moved here more than 30 years ago, the city has always been an expensive place to live - too expensive for my taste. What has most dramatically changed is not real estate values in the East Bay - in my middle class neighborhood in Oakland real estate prices are NOT skyrocketing, probably because of the schools. The house next door to me - a beautiful, charming 2 bedroom with a legal one bedroom inlaw unit and a HUGE double sized lot - is listing for $500k, which two income families in the Bay Area may afford. So I am always puzzled why there is such a hue and cry.
What has changed is that the tech world has gotten a lot more age-ist. When I was younger, I felt excited to be around those older than me who had a lot of knowledge and insight I was eager to benefit from. Today that has all changed. The average age is in the 20's and 30's and for people like me who are 60 and at the top of their game, it's almost impossible to find work. Most of my friends are out of work and surviving thanks to the help of friends and families. The tech world has abandoned us, as if we were somehow out of touch. (I assure you, I am not out of touch.)
What has changed is that the tech world has gotten a lot more age-ist. When I was younger, I felt excited to be around those older than me who had a lot of knowledge and insight I was eager to benefit from. Today that has all changed. The average age is in the 20's and 30's and for people like me who are 60 and at the top of their game, it's almost impossible to find work. Most of my friends are out of work and surviving thanks to the help of friends and families. The tech world has abandoned us, as if we were somehow out of touch. (I assure you, I am not out of touch.)
16
If you're inclined to schadenfreude you should fear not. The wheel always turns and as you know it turns faster as time passe; Hubris is deadly. These folks will indeed have their comeuppance
Only in leftwingistan is economic activity a bad thing, and an economic crash is the best way to help the poor. I'll bet the poor made out like bandits in 2008
8
Did you read the article? it's saying neither of those things.
6
Blame the techies? No, blame economics. It's too convenient for those priced out to find and blame a monster. I've been in the Bay Area all my life and still can't afford to buy in SF. But since the 70's here are the assorted villains: 1) Arab oil money 2) the Yuppies 3) Chinese money. 4) techies. Do we see the pattern here? It's the economy, stupid!
3
I came to San Francisco in the sixties from New York. To quote a greeting card: "There must be a heaven because there's San Francisco" perfectly described my
feelings. It was a laid-back friendly town, which welcomed everyone. Folks lived in the City and worked here. I won't go on to describe all the City's other charms, which are many. I've seen a terrible deterioration of quality of life since the advent of the Silicon Valley techies, who use the City as a bedroom and fun
place to spend their huge incomes. Air BnB has transformed many affordable rental units into hotels for out-of-towners. Our current mayor has sold out to big business. Meanwhile, we have people sleeping on the sidewalks and the lucky ones in tents (which have been forcibly removed by the Mayor in many places, so the rich don't have to be disturbed by the "riffraff." Tragic.
feelings. It was a laid-back friendly town, which welcomed everyone. Folks lived in the City and worked here. I won't go on to describe all the City's other charms, which are many. I've seen a terrible deterioration of quality of life since the advent of the Silicon Valley techies, who use the City as a bedroom and fun
place to spend their huge incomes. Air BnB has transformed many affordable rental units into hotels for out-of-towners. Our current mayor has sold out to big business. Meanwhile, we have people sleeping on the sidewalks and the lucky ones in tents (which have been forcibly removed by the Mayor in many places, so the rich don't have to be disturbed by the "riffraff." Tragic.
11
Anybody who supported Supervisors such as Avalos, Campos, KIm, Mar, Daly, Ammiano, Mirkarimi, Gonzales, and, yes, Peskin bears more responsibility for the homeless situation than the current Mayor and tech industry workers.
4
In fairness, while Daly had an unfortunately big mouth, his actions did not always correspond with his rhetoric and he ended up earning my grudging respect. It was he who "betrayed" his fellow Liberal Supervisors by cutting the deal that allowed for the vastly increased density across Market from the library and on top of the Van Ness Muni station, in exchange for a then-unprecedented percentage of affordable units. The man created a compromise that benefited subsidized housing, built an astonishing number of public-transit dependent units, and increased density with little parking at a major subway station and only a few blocks from BART. Compare this with Peskin-II who is wasting his time fighting the tech busses and Van Ness Rapid Bus -- and building no housing, discouraging no cars, and otherwise declining to address our actual problems. -- Donald
2
that's patently untrue... these same folks, except Mar, have worked hard for the homeless.
Smart people can't be smart about everything. It's easy. Just make location value into common wealth, like Aspen CO did. Recover land value (via tax, fee, dues, whatever) and disburse the revenue as a residential dividend. Complaining turns into cheering. Higher site values, fatter dividend. Close the loop. Problem solved. Sort of like Alaska's oil dividend. What Singapore does is even more similar to what SF needs. Hi tech needs hi-ethic.
2
I lived here in the 1970s, when the city was quite literally rotting away from lack of maintenance, there was no money for anything, and the homeless were just as evident as they are now. Do we really want to go back to that? If we kick technology out, what will happen to the maintenance? The renewed parks and public spaces, the bike lanes, the improved Muni (including free Muni for the young and old)? Where will the half-billion dollars a year we spend on dealing with homeless come from? (San Francisco did not vote for any of the policies that created this mess, but we've been stuck with dealing with it, while the folks who did vote for these policies until recently experienced none of it.) Where will the money for subsidized housing, subsidized arts, come from? While the boom times hurt, the answer is not to end them. It's to use the tech money to try to solve some of our housing and transportation issues. Yet most of the "answers" proposed by those who don't like the changes amount to reducing the amount of housing being built. That may feel good as a blow to "tech," but it is virtually guaranteed to make things worse. -- Donald
8
The thing is that a lot of the people fighting what they term as "gentrification" or "corporate greed" either can't remember what it was like here in the 70s and early 80s (similar to why David Bowie had absolutely no recollection of certain years in his life) or have a vested financial interest in maintaining the status quo. So, in a one-party town dominated by machine politics, there's zero appetite for any real fixes.
2
The shuttles should stop away from schools and next to their own companies so they can flirt with the lives of oblivious tech employees. Major tech companies should pay off the SF debt of $100 million, as to billionaires this amount is like $1.00. Affordable apartments and homes should be made available to restaurant workers, teachers and all other essential people. How? Still to be worked out. A new source of jobs for thousands, like renewable energy, should be designed as a large company in SF to train solar and wind turbine engineers; this sector will have pride in their contribution to ending global warming and also can moderate the policies set by tech companies and employees. If their shuttles misbehave, their power could be cut off by the pure hearted renewables tech workers. The renewables employees would also have high salaries and muscle in local politics. The offensive comments by Mr. Keller about the homeless should result in the police interrogating him to determine whether he is a vagrant. He also deserves his cubicle power shut off. Letting air out of tensions in SF isn't too difficult to handle.
4
I lived in San Francisco 1974 to 77. I liked the city and resisted getting transferred by my company to another city for a year until the whole company moved. On a temporary assignment back there in 1982, rents were still quite affordable, well within the company per diem. On my personal visit back there in the late 90's, hotel rates were still affordable - about $100/night at the Holiday Inn downtown where we stayed for a week. On my visit there last year, I found the hotel rates downtown unacceptable so I picked a comparable hotel in San Bruno. It's a supply and demand issue but people can still make choices, as I did on the last visit. If housing is such a problem, I saw a lot of row houses on the west side (north and south of Golden Gate Park). Why not change the rules to make it easier for investors to buy the owners out and build multistory buildings for condos and apartments as being done in Houston, Texas? Of course, it may not look as pretty but then, it might or even prettier. Those on upper floors would be able to see far into the Pacific ocean :-).
1
Maybe public employees should do away with pensions and have 401k like everyone else and instead have salaries that match the private sector.
2
I agree! Since teachers often have to spend more years/money getting their education, I'd recommend that teachers make more than coders.
Or perhaps you think coders make less than teachers...?
Or perhaps you think coders make less than teachers...?
4
Most do now.
When a parent of a child at a private schools states, "I think we need a moratorium on the things that benefit the few,” is that meant to be ironic? Or when the proprietor of a fancy pizza restaurant states that, "A lot of our cooks don’t live in the city. They can’t afford it.” Is he stating that his employees are not paid enough? Are we San Franciscans so blind to our own hipocracy? The constant media drum beat of "Make San Francisco Great Again but not if it inconveniences the people already here", is maddening. Often if feels as though San Franciscans are trying to pull up the drawbridge behind them and preserve a nostalgic view of the way things were when THEY got here. We are good people with good hearts, but we could all benefit from a little more self awareness. We are all to blame for our current condition and we all need to be part of a solution. There is room for all of us.
6
It's ironic, isn't it, that SF "progressives" have fallen victim to a key tenet of their own ideology: Marxist dialectics. People are now coming to SF to work, not to slack. Yes, aging hippies and the carpetbagging politicians who love them, the times they are a changin'.
2
This world needs a little more slacking. Of the good kind.
3
This article misses two important points that must be considered. Firstly San Francisco is evolving from a smaller city that has historically punched above its weight in terms of global importance, to a global city, to a mini version of London, New York, or Sydney, where the demand for and price of homes is driven as much by external factors as local. Yes, the tech industry is behind this, just as gold was behind it in the 19th century. Unlike gold, there is no limit to innovation that is fuelling this tech boom. Today we talk about Apple, AirBnB or Uber or FaceBook. Two, five, ten years from now we will no doubt be talking about the newcomers that are driving virtual reality, genetic technology, or medical tech advances that are emerging as a result of the concentration of talent and industry that has occurred here. Secondly there is a high demand for property from China investors and with the long established Chinese community in SF the City has become an attractive investment option for them either to place surplus funds outside China or to fund homes for kids who will attend one of the many world class universities here. Do we blame the universities also? The innovation and evolution of the tech industry, and it's global success, will continue for the foreseeable future. And I read that the off-shore investors from China are still active and interested in the Bay area property markets. For those hoping for a down-turn some time soon, I would not hold my breath.
8
Well said. "Off-shore investors" should not be allowed to buy up property and turn communities into investments. Move here legally and buy a house you live in. Other countries restrict this, why don't we.
7
Who needs techies anyways? I say this while I check facebook on my iphone during my uber ride home and just before I tweet about organizing a meetup to protest about airbnb which saved me money on my last vacation I booked through google.
9
Fair point, but did you miss any of this stuff in 1998 when it didn't exist?
4
Yeah, let us keep "The Tenderloin" and "De Castro".
They are so loverly. Why don't we run Tour Groups?
Calm down. I wouldn't like it either if housing prices Sky-Rocketed out of the Galaxy.
But, with a little bit of Give-and-Take, you can have your High-Tech boom ... and eat it, too.
They are so loverly. Why don't we run Tour Groups?
Calm down. I wouldn't like it either if housing prices Sky-Rocketed out of the Galaxy.
But, with a little bit of Give-and-Take, you can have your High-Tech boom ... and eat it, too.
1
The tech industry gets most of the ire, but the main culprits for increase in housing costs are the real estate industry and the restrictive rules that discourage the supply of housing -- especially apartment buildings with more floors & units that are more efficient in terms of land use.
It's pure gouging when landlords routinely raise monthly rents for existing tenants by crushing amounts every time a lease renewal comes up. House flipping and other kinds of real estate speculation also increase prices.
I'm surprised to hear that although the San Francisco city revenues have grown so much, it still runs a deficit.
Greed is bipartisan in San Francisco. San Francisco is an example of how left-right politics does not help those in the middle.
It's pure gouging when landlords routinely raise monthly rents for existing tenants by crushing amounts every time a lease renewal comes up. House flipping and other kinds of real estate speculation also increase prices.
I'm surprised to hear that although the San Francisco city revenues have grown so much, it still runs a deficit.
Greed is bipartisan in San Francisco. San Francisco is an example of how left-right politics does not help those in the middle.
8
Stay tuned folks! The homelessness issue has now reached crisis status, as evidenced by David Campos (SF Board of Supervisors), holding a press conference yesterday to announce he is introducing a "A State of Emergency" declaration on this issue. Emergency! ... as in requiring an urgent response like an earthquake or flood has just hit! Watch it here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyKBgl5-Y0k
It's important, in order to properly view Campos' action, that he has a long history of using hysteria and alarmist tactics to inflame people over issues he supports. This latest legislation is more about attacking the Mayor than it is about addressing a long-festering problem that Campos, many of his fellow
Supervisors, and the massive city-funded non-profit sector sustain and have no real incentive to solve.
Supervisors, and the massive city-funded non-profit sector sustain and have no real incentive to solve.
3
I moved to San Francisco in 1971 to join the San Francisco ballet. I was one of five girls who initiated the SOB campaign which ultimately saved the San Francisco ballet in the mid 70's. I founded City Ballet School with a fellow SFB dancer and ran it with my husband for almost 20 years. I just resigned from the faculty of the San Francisco Ballet because we lost our rental, our landlords can get 3 times as much for our one bedroom. We are leaving the city we love. How sad that the people who made this city can't live here anymore!!
12
Sadly, many of the same people bemoaning the effects of “tech values” on SF do little or nothing to support the arts, especially disciplines they view as "elitist" or as connected to "downtown interests".
Just look at how City Hall has allowed the Opera House to decay, to the detriment of SF Ballet and SF Opera. And it's very revealing how the Supervisors, who normally are staunch union supporters, did nothing to support the musicians in the Symphony when they were involved in a labor dispute recently. Even arts organizations that are privately funded, such as SFJazz, are regularly condemned and obstructed by politicians and activists.
The mixture of progressive ideology, where people who are highly talented, insanely dedicated, and work in disciplines that require years of training or education are viewed as misguided, and, to be frank, the philistine outlook of many in SF means that there currently is little to no place for people who value culture.
Just look at how City Hall has allowed the Opera House to decay, to the detriment of SF Ballet and SF Opera. And it's very revealing how the Supervisors, who normally are staunch union supporters, did nothing to support the musicians in the Symphony when they were involved in a labor dispute recently. Even arts organizations that are privately funded, such as SFJazz, are regularly condemned and obstructed by politicians and activists.
The mixture of progressive ideology, where people who are highly talented, insanely dedicated, and work in disciplines that require years of training or education are viewed as misguided, and, to be frank, the philistine outlook of many in SF means that there currently is little to no place for people who value culture.
3
Allowing taller buildings would help with the housing shortage. As it stands, the people complaining about high housing costs are largely the same people who protest zoning changes that would alleviate them.
6
Earthquakes are an important consideration in SF building codes. It can be unsafe to be in a 6 or 7 earthquake with millions of buildings above a certain height. SF simply would not have enough emergency staff or equipment to deal with that many highrises
Born & raise in the Bay Area. Lived in SF & loved it for the "urban experience" it once was. Though I'm a short BART ride away I have almost no desire to spend any time there anymore. It's like a really big convention of gamers, techies, & opportunists have come to town & aren't leaving. Meanwhile for a short while there was hope that Oakland would bloom & it has; but it too is becoming just an outlet for those who can't quite make SF work. Maybe I'm just too old?
4
“I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day."
Finally! Someone even more despicable than Donald Trump!
Finally! Someone even more despicable than Donald Trump!
9
So now the homeless have a right to harass working people?
3
This article, like the (legitimate) popular frustration in San Francisco, misses the point. The government is consistently failing its people and then stoking populism by scapegoating the wealthy and successful rather than serving. San Francisco has the highest rents because of its horrific building regulations and administration. The builders I know all are leaving San Francisco in disgust. Consider this: compare the rate of high rise construction in New York vs San Francisco. And...10K people a year added over an 800k base is a joke at barely over 1% growth. The Sun Belt cities have absorbed an order of magnitude faster growth in many years and managed to stay affordable. As to traffic, maybe people should ask the governor why we are wasting billions on a train to LA rather than restructuring the busy SF and LA city corridors.
It makes me sad to see the intellectually impoverished and in many cases downright duplicitous state of discourse in the media and politics. Reality TV and talk shows, with their shallow or non-existent grasp of meaningful issues, are much cheaper to produce and easier for people more interested in venting than really solving issues. This all - to me - culminates in the degenerate campaigning we now see for the Presidency (really: his hands are too small? that's the issue?). They say we get the politicians we deserve....well, San Francisco rents and California congestion are the policies we apparently deserve as well. Sigh....
It makes me sad to see the intellectually impoverished and in many cases downright duplicitous state of discourse in the media and politics. Reality TV and talk shows, with their shallow or non-existent grasp of meaningful issues, are much cheaper to produce and easier for people more interested in venting than really solving issues. This all - to me - culminates in the degenerate campaigning we now see for the Presidency (really: his hands are too small? that's the issue?). They say we get the politicians we deserve....well, San Francisco rents and California congestion are the policies we apparently deserve as well. Sigh....
3
But I think we need a moratorium on the things that benefit the few,” Ms. Hoffmann said. “If only there were some way to prevent the haves from having it all"
Said the woman who send her children to a school that costs $20,000 per year per child.
Said the woman who send her children to a school that costs $20,000 per year per child.
6
Most cities have rich, overpriced neighborhoods. In San Francisco's case, the rich neighborhood grew to fill the entire city. Please remember that San Francisco and Silicon Valley are envied by most of the countries of the world.
The tech folks can do basic accounting and strategic planning, too. They will find workable locations a bit farther from San Francisco. Santa Cruz and Monterey are tempting.
The tech folks can do basic accounting and strategic planning, too. They will find workable locations a bit farther from San Francisco. Santa Cruz and Monterey are tempting.
I think that many of San Francisco’s long-time residents will be glad to see the techies move on. It seems like the techies are ruining the character of the city. They're destroying the reason that the wanted to move there to begin with. It's like the people who move to the area of their city that has artists and musicians because they like the culture and the lifestyle and then they change the area so that the artists and the musicians can no longer live there.
1
This little microcosm of SF is really also a referendum on how we want to live as a society. When highly educated families with good jobs can still not afford housing and education for their children, then we as a society are saying that we do not care about working families nor about our future. The issue of affordability is not limited to the 7x7 confines of SF. Attempting to move to the suburbs for a more affordable life (maybe trading in the time time with your family to commuting) will still not yield the ability to but or rent.
I have moved out the suburbs in an attempt to get decent schools for my children. Every year, the rent skyrockets so that it is impossible to save up a down payment for a house. Townhouses in my current city start at 1.2 million! The meth house around the corner from me just sold for 1.4 million! Moving away sounds simple, but what I have discovered is that I wouldn't necessarily be able to have a secure job in another part of the country. So people are stuck: live where there are jobs but always be teetering on the edge of eviction due to rent increases or move to where it is "affordable" and not necessarily have employment.
How do we resolve what is really a nation-wide problem of creating a decent life for working families?
I have moved out the suburbs in an attempt to get decent schools for my children. Every year, the rent skyrockets so that it is impossible to save up a down payment for a house. Townhouses in my current city start at 1.2 million! The meth house around the corner from me just sold for 1.4 million! Moving away sounds simple, but what I have discovered is that I wouldn't necessarily be able to have a secure job in another part of the country. So people are stuck: live where there are jobs but always be teetering on the edge of eviction due to rent increases or move to where it is "affordable" and not necessarily have employment.
How do we resolve what is really a nation-wide problem of creating a decent life for working families?
8
Kate, you have my sympathy. I was able to move two states away because I had established a freelance editing business. Creating any kind of an independent work-from-home livelihood gives you more geographic flexibility. I drafted letters for my four top clients to sign, attesting they would continue using my services; they all signed and I kept working for them remotely (thank you, email and Internet!). 12 years later, I still work for two of them, and a third periodically, and I've added many more clients since. When I read of massive layoffs and outsourcing, I'm glad I have a diverse client base. The main downside is providing your own health insurance in a country that decided employers should handle that (but even that is crumbling). I hope things work out for you. (Certainly, having children makes work and location and uprooting more of a challenge.)
2
I'm an artist living in Silicon Valley. My husband is a tech executive. My husband's parents are full-time artists. My husband worked his way up from poverty. We are both Midwest transplants.
We live in the suburbs and I travel into San Francisco for the art community. I watch the exodus of my artist colleagues from San Francisco. It's hard to find any healthy artist communities in the suburbs of Silicon Valley.
In the Midwest, if there is a housing shortage they build more housing. I took Econ 101 in college and I learned that if there is excess demand and prices are too high, an increase in supply will drop prices
Look at San Francisco's housing stock. You'll see mostly two story apartments and single family homes. If we built more high rise apartments, supply of housing would increase and prices would drop. But people protest that high rises will ruin the skyline and destroy the city's character. It's nice to be concerned about the view, but building housing for the middle class and poor should come first.
People also protest that building more housing will only attract more techies to the city. Protestors in the streets attempt to block development of apartment buildings. The same people who are against development are the ones who protest high rents. It makes no sense. There's a culture war going on between the old and the new. The hostility towards newcomers is the antithesis of San Francisco's spirit. Welcome everyone and build more housing.
We live in the suburbs and I travel into San Francisco for the art community. I watch the exodus of my artist colleagues from San Francisco. It's hard to find any healthy artist communities in the suburbs of Silicon Valley.
In the Midwest, if there is a housing shortage they build more housing. I took Econ 101 in college and I learned that if there is excess demand and prices are too high, an increase in supply will drop prices
Look at San Francisco's housing stock. You'll see mostly two story apartments and single family homes. If we built more high rise apartments, supply of housing would increase and prices would drop. But people protest that high rises will ruin the skyline and destroy the city's character. It's nice to be concerned about the view, but building housing for the middle class and poor should come first.
People also protest that building more housing will only attract more techies to the city. Protestors in the streets attempt to block development of apartment buildings. The same people who are against development are the ones who protest high rents. It makes no sense. There's a culture war going on between the old and the new. The hostility towards newcomers is the antithesis of San Francisco's spirit. Welcome everyone and build more housing.
4
Aaron Peskin does not represent the city as a whole. Heck he barely won his district election...by a mere thousand votes. Yet he feels he has a mandate to set the direction for the whole city. He is a little man....
2
...figuratively and literally. The spectacle of a differently-heighted (using SF city government approved terminology here) man bullying a fellow Supervisor who is paralyzed from the waist down over wheelchair access to the Supervisors' chambers was disgraceful.
1
Our own SF owner move-in eviction (from the flat we had rented for 14 years) came in 2004. In retrospect, it was a good thing. At the time, having 60 days to find a new home meant (1) panic at losing rent control (no vacancy control on rents), (2) searching and confronting the prospect of a 50% to 100% rent increase, and (3) realizing the time had come to leave the Bay Area, my lifelong home to that point. We had survived the late 90s dot-com bubble and bust; if somehow we'd kept our rental, we would be trapped and terrified now. But after 27 years in SF, we moved two states north -- and bought a house. For the cost of our mortgage payment, today we couldn't find a converted garage/mother-in-law apt. in San Francisco. Heck, for our entire monthly expenses we couldn't find a decent space -- and would live in fear of another eviction. I see no products or services in the photo essay that fill any *essential* needs or solve significant challenges. It's indeed reminiscent of the dot-com bubble. Young 'uns, you have been warned.
9
In order to relieve traffic congestion in San Francisco, why aren't more tech employees telecommuting? Perhaps the city ought to ask residents employed with Silicon Valley tech companies to telecommute one day per week.
1
It's not the techies causing the traffic jams. Their companies to the south provide those free shuttles, often monthly passes on Caltrain, and those techies take them because they're not stupid. The city's problems can be chalked up to stupid management by the mayor's office, i.e., a 100 million dollar deficit and they don't charge the super rich NFL for all the public services provided by disrupting everyone's lives here? Seriously, do you think the NFL would have moved those events to Oakland or San Jose? Stupid housing policies driven by NIMBYs and misguided progressives standing in the way of multi unit residential buildings.
I live in an area of the city which over ten years ago was filled with empty lots and decrepit warehouses. Luckily, there are no NIMBY's to stand in the way of the many multi unit buildings springing up here. But go north, southwest and west and there are many neighborhoods where it is all single family or two and three story buildings. Many of this city's residents are it's own worst enemies. If you want residential prices to come down, units need to be built. Keep standing in the way of that and rents and home prices will just keep going up.
I live in an area of the city which over ten years ago was filled with empty lots and decrepit warehouses. Luckily, there are no NIMBY's to stand in the way of the many multi unit buildings springing up here. But go north, southwest and west and there are many neighborhoods where it is all single family or two and three story buildings. Many of this city's residents are it's own worst enemies. If you want residential prices to come down, units need to be built. Keep standing in the way of that and rents and home prices will just keep going up.
2
So some pizza guy won't pay his workers a living wage because tech multi millionaires won't spend more than $15 on pizza? I can just hear him whine "But if I raise my prices, I will go out of business!" That is the business world, dude. If you don't pay your workers a decent wage, you can expect them to get a job elsewhere, or be homeless on the street. It is your choice.
3
Except that they're not getting jobs elsewhere; Obama and Obamacare made sure there would be no jobs in a low growth economy. And it's not an employer's responsibility if someone becomes homeless because Big Government rent control prevents new housing from getting built.
1
New housing??? This is San Francisco. It is totally built up. There is no room for new housing. If you want to build something you have to tear something down, and I assure you nobody is going to tear down wealthy person housing to build subsidized low income housing. What does Obama and Obamacare have to do with any of this? Unemployment is way down since Bush crashed the economy, and profits are way up. How has increased access to healthcare caused harm to a growing a economy? Are you claiming that the economy would be growing faster than it currently is if more people were NOT insured? Please, step away from the No Fact Zone at FAUX News. The problem is that business owners are saying that they can not become fabulously wealthy if they have to pay their employees a living wage.
1
It used to be that I found a seat once in a while on BART on my commute into the City a few years ago, but no longer. BART trains are standing-room only even at odd hours. Rent for a one-bedroom apartment costs over $2000 even in the East Bay.
The smartest people are lured into tech companies whose mission is to make money. They've figured out how to squeeze every dollar and cent out of their workers. Sure, the engineers get treated well, but everybody else working for tech companies get treated like dirt. And the smart people make sure that it's all legal. I worry for my kids' generation...
The smartest people are lured into tech companies whose mission is to make money. They've figured out how to squeeze every dollar and cent out of their workers. Sure, the engineers get treated well, but everybody else working for tech companies get treated like dirt. And the smart people make sure that it's all legal. I worry for my kids' generation...
8
For 35 years I got up at 5 A.M. and got home at 7 P.M commuting 40 miles each way from NJ. I was a teacher and could've stayed in Manhattan in my so-called Mitchell Lama coop surrounded on all sides by "projects." Moving was a choice most New Yorker and I never complained about. It just is.
Getting to SF State in the 1950's wasn't easy either since it was a commuter college without dormitories. Thus sharing an apartment in a low income area was the only economic choice. So Techies, it was never easy to have it all...great job, short commute, nice flat, great night scene, great city.
Is it any wonder that people like me retire to the Nevada desert...of clean air, less people, lower taxes and fewer services.
Getting to SF State in the 1950's wasn't easy either since it was a commuter college without dormitories. Thus sharing an apartment in a low income area was the only economic choice. So Techies, it was never easy to have it all...great job, short commute, nice flat, great night scene, great city.
Is it any wonder that people like me retire to the Nevada desert...of clean air, less people, lower taxes and fewer services.
2
Rooting for a "Tech Comeuppance", are they? So "Baghdad by the Bay" reverts to what it was around the time Steve McQueen starred in "Bullitt"?
Impossible, short of another world war or economic collapse.
"The City", as those who live in any North, East or South Bay community call it for fear of being upbraided by a native inebriated San Franciskie (and, for God's sake, never ever call it "Frisco", or "San Frandisco") is both bullet-proof and doomed to fail -- hoisted on its own petard, undone by its success. It will go the way of the Dodo, or the Gold Coast, Newport Beach; the Gold Coast, Santa Barbara; the Gold Coast, Malibu; the Gold Coast, Brentwood; the Gold Coast, Palos Verdes; or the Gold Coast, Bel Air. Gold Coast, San Marino. Hillsborough; Vail and Aspen, Colorado, for that matter. Same reason. All that gold.
Real estate on Jackson Street, in Pacific Heights, and in Palo Alto around Stanford University is as pricey per square foot as anything on Manhattan's Upper East Side or in Greenwich, Connecticut. Too many people with much too much money want the same thing and are determined to have it; why residing in the entire Bay Area is fast becoming an impossibility for anyone lacking their ruthlessness and resources. As for the automobile traffic, forget it.
It's ruined.
I expect the Brown Administration will deliver the coup de grace by breaking ground on a TGV system that brings sleepy Central Valley communities as far south as Merced into easy commuting range.
Impossible, short of another world war or economic collapse.
"The City", as those who live in any North, East or South Bay community call it for fear of being upbraided by a native inebriated San Franciskie (and, for God's sake, never ever call it "Frisco", or "San Frandisco") is both bullet-proof and doomed to fail -- hoisted on its own petard, undone by its success. It will go the way of the Dodo, or the Gold Coast, Newport Beach; the Gold Coast, Santa Barbara; the Gold Coast, Malibu; the Gold Coast, Brentwood; the Gold Coast, Palos Verdes; or the Gold Coast, Bel Air. Gold Coast, San Marino. Hillsborough; Vail and Aspen, Colorado, for that matter. Same reason. All that gold.
Real estate on Jackson Street, in Pacific Heights, and in Palo Alto around Stanford University is as pricey per square foot as anything on Manhattan's Upper East Side or in Greenwich, Connecticut. Too many people with much too much money want the same thing and are determined to have it; why residing in the entire Bay Area is fast becoming an impossibility for anyone lacking their ruthlessness and resources. As for the automobile traffic, forget it.
It's ruined.
I expect the Brown Administration will deliver the coup de grace by breaking ground on a TGV system that brings sleepy Central Valley communities as far south as Merced into easy commuting range.
1
I know it's perhaps slightly more complicated than this but part of San Francisco's problem appears to be their unwillingness to build up. New York is an expesnice coastal city as well with loads and loads of money but at least they aren't afraid to build up to at least help the situation somewhat.
2
Build up so more rich people can pay $4000/month rents? How does that help anything but enrich landlords and ruin the vistas of this beautiful city whose scale is part of it's charm?
2
SF needs more housing. That's the only thing that will bring prices down.
Does New York have earthquakes?
I visit SF very often and see the reality. I also visit San Jose and other cities up and down the valley and the distribution of people and wealth is puzzling. San Jose has boarded up store fronts downtown, for example. What's missing in the Bay Area and is missing in most American megaloposes is regional governance. Something smaller than state government and larger than any single city. The counties are logical entities to look at though with incorporation of cities county government in many places has become atrophied. I am suggesting a revitalized role for county government which I am sure would not go well with the cities.
6
Interesting take. San Leandro is a city just below Oakland, it was once a blue collar industrial hub. Now a good deal of the retail is boarded up & 1/2 of the Industrial part of town empty. Yet it is betw 20-30 min from downtown SF (no traffic), with access to 3 freeways & 2 BART stations.
2
There was a movement in the first decade after the turn of the last century to consolidate The Bay Area into a single City a la New York. It makes for interesting reading. It really is a pity it didn't happen. 100 years later and there is an immense amount of waste in duplication of effort and services from one Bay Area jurisdiction to the next.
.“If only there were some way to prevent the haves from having it all.” This days it all. There is a way: a democracy which has human beings and the common good, and not only money, at its core. One can call it a social democracy, a social market economy. How did the Protestant ethicist Karl Weber put it? I paraphrase from memory: once Capitalism has won, it will no longer need the Spirit...
Poor rich San Francisco.
Poor rich San Francisco.
2
In the San Francisco Bay Area traffic is gridlocked every day, when you can find an apartment rents are sky high and homes are unaffordable. This goes for San Francisco, the Peninsula, the East Bay, and the South Bay region including the San Jose. Yes the weather is sunny and warm and it is an exciting place to live, there are lots of things to do, and it is so very hip and cool but I moved back to NY.
If your going to San Francisco forget the flowers in your hair bring cash in your wallet.
If your going to San Francisco forget the flowers in your hair bring cash in your wallet.
6
It has been enjoyable to read about this over many months. I visit LA, CA annually to visit a son, and will plan a road trip north next year. One comment though: Wealth is just as capable of ravaging cities as poverty.
11
I moved to the Bay area in the early 80s. Imagine how beautiful my daily commute along the 280 corridor was, with 0-4 other vehicles within my line of sight at any given moment. Having lived in Germany prior to the Bay area (I'm American), I was accustomed to the no-speed-limit sections of the Autobahn, and received my share of tickets before retraining my brain. Special events that caused congestion meant that "many vehicles" were on the road, but, guess what? They were going ~70 MPH. I even bought a nice house. Fast forward to 2015. In spite of the incredible beauty of the Bay area and all it has to offer, I had become so disgusted with traffic congestion (even 280 is a terrible mess), population density and the stupid cost of living that I decided to get the hell out of there. I'm a new resident of the mid-Atlantic region. It feels like another planet here. A wonderful planet.
As to company shuttles, I do not understand the objection. They take so many people off the road, helping make up for the fact that public transportation cannot get most people where they need to go in the Bay area.
As to company shuttles, I do not understand the objection. They take so many people off the road, helping make up for the fact that public transportation cannot get most people where they need to go in the Bay area.
5
Though I am not at all a supporter of Supervisor Aaron Peskin, I fully agree with his observation.
We all would be better off had city government, while giving tech enormous tax breaks, forced that industry to pay up for 1) vast improvement and expansion of public transport in the entire Bay Area, 2) support small business wherever their offices and employees are located, 3) install fiber optic cable all over the Bay Area to give equally high quality internet access to all people and businesses everywhere, 4) modernize Caltrain and increase its frequency to every 5 minutes, 24/7, shuttling between San Francisco and Silicon Valley so tech kids can bike to train and work, 5) provide affordable housing to people in need instead of calling those people "riff raff", 7) massively invest in essential housing, i.e. housing for emergency responders, police officers, firefighters and other essential professionals, most of whom have to commute (some up to two hours!!) between home and work because they cannot afford to live in the city they are to protect when disaster strikes, 7) practice, and instill in their employees, a lasting spirit if philanthropy in supporting education and arts.
We all would be better off had city government, while giving tech enormous tax breaks, forced that industry to pay up for 1) vast improvement and expansion of public transport in the entire Bay Area, 2) support small business wherever their offices and employees are located, 3) install fiber optic cable all over the Bay Area to give equally high quality internet access to all people and businesses everywhere, 4) modernize Caltrain and increase its frequency to every 5 minutes, 24/7, shuttling between San Francisco and Silicon Valley so tech kids can bike to train and work, 5) provide affordable housing to people in need instead of calling those people "riff raff", 7) massively invest in essential housing, i.e. housing for emergency responders, police officers, firefighters and other essential professionals, most of whom have to commute (some up to two hours!!) between home and work because they cannot afford to live in the city they are to protect when disaster strikes, 7) practice, and instill in their employees, a lasting spirit if philanthropy in supporting education and arts.
5
Visited my daughter in the Bay Area last December (lived in SF from 1989 - 2003). I was appalled. The city has changed so much.....it was heartbreaking. This is not the SF I remember. Damn shame.
7
Fascinating photographs indeed. I can almost smell the dirty socks. Life seems like a continuation of college life everywhere for a group of entitled students who inject their style of living on everyone around them with little thought of the consequences. I too live in a city that has rents that are disproportionate to services. The options are slim pickings. The choices are disconcerting, especially as a 60 year old single person who keeps living on the edge and can hardly fathom where I'm going to get the money to live when I'm 80.
6
In San Francisco, and throughout the Bay Area at various levels and intensities, the wealthy will continue to walk over the peons till the next bust. The city has its beauty which no one living today is responsible for, but the wealthy are desecrating the noir by Manhattanizing every commercial space. The city is exciting, but it does not even remotely resemble its former self of just 25 years ago. And it is a totally new and plasticised place since the 70s. The only time when it is worth living in a one room flat with a bare lightbulb hanging down is when that studio rents for maybe $500. In the 70s it would have been maybe $300. The noir is dead. Gone.
5
Move to NY!
I lived in San Francisco during the first dotcom Boom, worked for a startup. I still go back to visit friends every year. The city has changed; many of the attributes that make San Francisco attractive are gone. I enjoyed living there - but I wouldn't now.
Some people are barely hanging on in the city. They are truly in distress - but somehow find the energy to condescend living anywhere but San Francisco. Blue Jasmine lives.
Some people are barely hanging on in the city. They are truly in distress - but somehow find the energy to condescend living anywhere but San Francisco. Blue Jasmine lives.
2
Someone please elaborate on what used to be there. Dive bars? More winos? Filth?
1
I have a condo in Sonoma. I used to live in San Francisco many years ago when it was a place where working people of all kinds could live. I lived in the Mission and Marina. That was 40 years ago. All classes could afford San Francisco and enjoy the beauty and liberal life style. I never go there now. It is too depressing. People are not computer code. The Tech companies should locate there drone work outside of California to more affordable places.
8
Supply and demand. Nobody wants to live in Tucson and El Paso.
A place isn't your home until you own it. You rent. You live where you live at the pleasure of your landlord.
It's sad, but true!
It's sad, but true!
3
Well, you don't get to choose what "home" means.
1
That is a legal choice we make. We are at liberty to structure the legal regulations of renting however we choose, as all countries do
Please get a grip. Have you tried to live anywhere within 50 miles of NYC. Studios are $1M+ and by the way the subways have been jam packed since the 1980's. SF loves Google, Facebook, PayPal and decried dirty places and companies that actually build things (Detroit - cars (how horrible); Pittsburgh - steel (so nasty)). I visited SF several times recently (for work) and I could not wait to get on a plane out of that fake place.
4
San Francisco has the allure as Manhattan. There is a lot of foreign money as well as many who want to live in these cities. So the average Joe cannot afford to live there as Manhattan and other places in California, NY, CT, FLA and other states. Life is not fair; I strongly suggest everyone get used to it.
3
Yeah, life isn't always fair.
But many times it's because we as a society don't make it fair.
So instead of "getting used to it," why not instead try to make it more fair for all of us? By working to decrease income inequality, by having laws that protect the poor, etc.
But many times it's because we as a society don't make it fair.
So instead of "getting used to it," why not instead try to make it more fair for all of us? By working to decrease income inequality, by having laws that protect the poor, etc.
6
Perhaps you've heard of the $17 trillion put on the nation's credit card to fund the failed endless War on Poverty. Your ideas have been tried for at least the past 50 years, and they don't work
1
That 17 trillion has not been used to "fight war on poverty". 30% of the money goes to fighting wars. And anyway, government debt and deficits don't have anything do with this. There is enough wealth in the US, but's it's spread very unequally e.g. compared to Europe.
And ~70% of that 17 trillion is assets of American people. It's the poor that owe that money to the rich. Think about it, when government takes $1 of debt, that's basically an agreement that the tax payers pay it back with interest to the wealthy who buy the bonds. And no, most of the debt is not to China, but to Americans.
And ~70% of that 17 trillion is assets of American people. It's the poor that owe that money to the rich. Think about it, when government takes $1 of debt, that's basically an agreement that the tax payers pay it back with interest to the wealthy who buy the bonds. And no, most of the debt is not to China, but to Americans.
2
From my view, San Francisco, Berkeley, Ann Arbor (MI), Manhattan, and D.C. have very real homeless issues that are all but ignored by elected leaders. It does not make you a snob if you don't want to pass 20 vagrants on your way to work, or see your kids playing soccer in a park full of strung out junkies, or find used heroin needles in Starbucks and public library restrooms.
9
San Francisco began as a boom town and that's what it is again today. I'm a fully employed engineer and I don't have any hope at all of buying a home anywhere in the area. I would go back home except this IS home - my family's been here for 4 generations and my roots are here. Unless you have wealthy parents or you're in tech, don't expect to ever be able to live as an adult or to be part of the middle class no matter how hard you work. After the 1989 earthquake lots of new arrivals packed up and went back to where they came from. Many of us secretly wish for another shaker - no one gets hurt but the ones that aren't used to it pack up and get the hell out.
7
I have seen my city of Austin go through a similar transformation over the past 25 years. There were waves of investment and growth that have driven up prices, created nightmares of traffic, and completely transformed this city. As each of these waves have passed, there has been a bust before the next occurred. First the PC revolution and the growth of Dell and a handful of software companies, then the internet and dotcom boom, and now the SaaS and cloud build out. Each wave has seemed bigger than the last and each has succeeded in scrubbing away some major elements that made Austin unique and replaced them with more glass towers and fancy cars. And each wave is accompanied by the voices of those who loved Austin as it used to be.
1
This is an example of government not stepping in to regulate landlord greed and abuse. Why aren't there limits in place around how much and how often landlords can raise rents? Why aren't there stronger protections in place to protect tenants from evictions? Landlords have a right to make a modest profit from their investments. But clearly the balance of power is always in their favor: the police, the courts, local politicians. Who stands up for us tenants?
1
Another week another article in the Times dissing San Francisco. It's getting tiresome
I have been a resident since 1985. Change happens. Get over it! San Francisco sat stagnant for decades. We are all living to be 100 and the population grows. The nimbys stop most construction in the neighborhoods in San Francisco and nothing gets built (except in SOMA). It's not rocket science folks, build housing for the growing population. It's all about supply and demand. I love the city and embrace change and find living in the city today is very exciting.
Nonsense, there is construction everywhere. Insanely too much. I see it every day.
1
I would strongly advise against low-income high-density housing on an earthquake fault line.
Maybe Stockton isn't such a bad place after all.
Maybe Stockton isn't such a bad place after all.
Why not a plethora of micro-apartments to attract the childless well-to-do, or the childless anyone?
Oh they're doing that. 275 sq feet, I think.
I fondly recall the Bay Area of my childhood from the 1960s through 70s. It makes watching old Clint Eastwood movies painful for the glimpses of a city that was a center of life and economic activity for ordinary people. This was before the rise of "tech" commodification of everyday life which turned living into a services consumption platform. That brought the ignorant, and arrogant clones like Justin Keller who are the real riffraff needing eviction.
9
Good article. Herein lies the problem. Poor city governance and planning across the board. Mayor Lee is monumentally incompetent and corrupt. Greedy, power hungry VC's like Ron Conway who have bought off Ed Lee. Mostly entitled and utterly arrogant young techies do very little to contribute to the city. I can't tell you how many conversations I have had with tech workers that are so delusional about their self-worth.
Can't wait for the bubble to burst so that this subset
of our city culture goes home to live in their parent's basement just like in early 2000.
Can't wait for the bubble to burst so that this subset
of our city culture goes home to live in their parent's basement just like in early 2000.
11
Good point about contributing to the city. Although this is no different than in any boom town with many recent arrivals, those who come to make a few bucks, and don't have deep roots here are not going to care about investing in quality of life, better schools, infrastructure, saving what makes this place worthwhile.
6
As a San Francisco resident--the thing that bothers me most is the gross sense of entitlement, illustrated perfectly by Justin Keller. The city is becoming homogenized in bro-tech & gross entitlement. I think too many people drank the kool-aid & read Steve Jobs/Apple quotes everyday--thinking they're Gods gift to humanity because they developed another lame app. Get real you vampires!
19
Who wouldn't want to be young, smart and rich?
1
Homeless have always been on the streets and have been for the 35 years I've been here. We have a disproportionate number of runaways and outcasts here and have always tolerated them as best we can. Activists of the past have done nothing to help, but there have been some problem solving approaches that have helped from some administrations, but guess what? Its not about money at all. (You may have to search alot to find the reporting but its out there).
The issue is not really tech, its pressure on real estate values. Some of that is the influx of tech business but alot if its is foreign investment, especially from Asia, and speculation since RE values have always done well here.
SF in fact needs higher income residents to foot the bills and obligations all those previous admins generated. We have very well paid public employees with retirement and benefits skewed way over the private sector including all those tech workers.
Lack of housing is mostly due to progressivist polices that meant well but did no look ahead. We have a long way to go on that, but there are not really that many places in the US where you can buy a home on a job at McDonalds. The real problem is the increase of owners trying to cash in on the rise and renters getting hurt, but this is common to all urban centers where anyone from anywhere can buy your RE.
The issue is not really tech, its pressure on real estate values. Some of that is the influx of tech business but alot if its is foreign investment, especially from Asia, and speculation since RE values have always done well here.
SF in fact needs higher income residents to foot the bills and obligations all those previous admins generated. We have very well paid public employees with retirement and benefits skewed way over the private sector including all those tech workers.
Lack of housing is mostly due to progressivist polices that meant well but did no look ahead. We have a long way to go on that, but there are not really that many places in the US where you can buy a home on a job at McDonalds. The real problem is the increase of owners trying to cash in on the rise and renters getting hurt, but this is common to all urban centers where anyone from anywhere can buy your RE.
2
For all the liberals rooting for the rich to become poor (why aren't you pushing for the poor to become rich?), remind yourselves that the rich earned their fortunes. You made them rich. You, a free adult in a free society, made a conscious decision of your own free will to trade your money for whatever good/service they provided. enough people independently made the same decision as you, to freely trade their money for goods and services. This is the economy, not Crazy Bernie or a federal bureaucrat deciding who gets what, but free people freely choosing what to spend or not spend their money on
3
You do realize that's not how economics actually works, right?
6
No, that is how it works. Maybe not in Venezuela, but the results speak for themselves
You and Venezuela again. You're like Walter Sobchak bringing every conversation back to Vietnam. Have you even been to Venezuela?
If you have a constructive socioeconomic plan for us poor left coast dum-dums, by all means please spell it out here. Do you see what happens, Larry?
If you have a constructive socioeconomic plan for us poor left coast dum-dums, by all means please spell it out here. Do you see what happens, Larry?
A latter day Tale of Two Cities: Paris in 1789, San Francisco in 2016. Note any similarities there?
2
There is a way to keep the haves from having it all. It's called a Land Value Tax. Google "The Prophet of San Francisco" to understand how to implement a system that would deal with rising rents by putting a stop to rent-seeking behavior.
1
Making money counts a lot in Silicon Valley - as it should - and San Franciscans should be thankful that some of the $$$ comes to their city.
It's my own "fault" that I chose to become and remain a professor, just as it is others' who have chosen a less lucrative career.
It's my own "fault" that I chose to become and remain a professor, just as it is others' who have chosen a less lucrative career.
The problems the author describes in this article are just as acute in the Los Angeles metro area, particularly in regard to affordable housing. Despite the jarring images of tent cities and overcrowded immigrant enclaves in the region, the city is awash in the money of the elite, representing the exorbitant wealth of not only the tech industry (in Santa Monica, "Silicon Beach") but also of Hollywood and foreign (namely, Chinese) investors who are buying up whole neighborhoods in all-cash deals (see Arcadia, South Pasadena, etc.). As if the competition on the demand side weren't insurmountable enough for someone not at the upper echelon of the 1%, supply is practically frozen as a result of feckless local governments that are not willing to overhaul anti-development local policies and naked displays of NIMBYish from entrenched locals not interested in the wants and needs of newcomers. Pondering the long-term sustainability of living in such a place as a millennial who would eventually like to have and provide for a family, I can't help but conclude the system is rigged.
Query why Trump and Sanders, revolting against the status quo as they are, are forging ahead in the presidential race.
Query why Trump and Sanders, revolting against the status quo as they are, are forging ahead in the presidential race.
It's only a matter of time before the bubble burst and all these ppl who have come here and destroyed what was once a beautiful place will be gone. And I can't wait and please take Ed Lee with u.
1
"But I think we need a moratorium on the things that benefit the few,”
How about loosening up some of the most stringent zoning and rent control laws in the nation for a start?
How about loosening up some of the most stringent zoning and rent control laws in the nation for a start?
1
How does rent control benefit the few?
A sad bunch of milennials who made all the wrong choices living in envy of those who studied math and engineering. Whining that they cannot afford to live in SF on their barista income. Heck, I couldn't afford to live in SF and I make 6 figures++.
If you want permanent housing, buy it. Otherwise, don't be surprised if your rents rise upon market demand. It's called economics. And those well-heeled people moving in are paying far more taxes than ayone of the whiners; without those taxes, SF would be in an even worse situation than it currently is.
As for "homeless," SF has been recruiting the homeless for decades by ignoring the degradation of daily life that results from unpoliced drug sales and use, public urination and defecation, and aggressive panhandling, and have rendered large blocs of SF impassable.
If you want permanent housing, buy it. Otherwise, don't be surprised if your rents rise upon market demand. It's called economics. And those well-heeled people moving in are paying far more taxes than ayone of the whiners; without those taxes, SF would be in an even worse situation than it currently is.
As for "homeless," SF has been recruiting the homeless for decades by ignoring the degradation of daily life that results from unpoliced drug sales and use, public urination and defecation, and aggressive panhandling, and have rendered large blocs of SF impassable.
2
How robust do you think the Silicon Valley tech market will remain once they don't have people running their marketing, HR, technical writing and legal departments? Not to mention all of the satellite businesses that make SF an attractive city for young tech millennials - restaurants, bookstores, theaters, the much-maligned cafes. And what about all the vendors they need - office supply, Internet and phone service, transportation - plus teachers to teach their children and government workers to keep the city running?
I'm a young tech millennial myself - in a different tech city that is experiencing some of the same things - and as attractive as my job is, I wouldn't have moved out here if the city wasn't an interesting place to live. Tech companies need non-math and non-engineeing majors to function, and they need them to keep the city they claim to love running, too. We can't start blaming people for not majoring in math or science or making the "right" decisions. First of all, when my generation went to college we had no idea tech was going to blow up this way - so those kids weren't some wise sages, they just got lucky. And secondly tech companies simply SUPPORT all of the other things we want to do in life. Tech exists to make other parts of life easier, not as a standalone thing.
I'm a young tech millennial myself - in a different tech city that is experiencing some of the same things - and as attractive as my job is, I wouldn't have moved out here if the city wasn't an interesting place to live. Tech companies need non-math and non-engineeing majors to function, and they need them to keep the city they claim to love running, too. We can't start blaming people for not majoring in math or science or making the "right" decisions. First of all, when my generation went to college we had no idea tech was going to blow up this way - so those kids weren't some wise sages, they just got lucky. And secondly tech companies simply SUPPORT all of the other things we want to do in life. Tech exists to make other parts of life easier, not as a standalone thing.
12
Oh, everyone should study math and engineering. That's what we need.
Some sense! Thank you.
Money talks. I'm in San Francisco regularly and the changes are very noticeable. I used to hire a car but now don't bother, traffic is too frequently slow and time consuming. I've found it quicker to walk and more comfortable than BART. I have seen the nature of the city change and prices rocket skywards for almost everything, I've seen people evicted and in tears leaving their home of decades and their city of choice for towns far away. Often eviction by greedy land lords results in job loss too. I love tech, but I do not love what has and is happening to the real people of the city. When a teacher cannot afford to live within a commute of her school, when it's cheaper to stay in a five star hotel for a week than it is to rent a rubbish 1 bedroom apartment for a month, something is clearly going wrong. Greed. Young tech people are also often from privileged backgrounds and have no mental space to see what's happening so involved in their jobs do they become. Social antipathy from Lack of worldly experience is its own problem. I fear for San Francisco if it goes on.
11
Last time I drove into the City, it took 90 minutes to go 30 miles. Last time I took BART out of the City, every car was packed solid. I don't mind the congestion. What bothers me greatly is the newly minted lack of empathy for average people.
For an area with so much influx of capital, it is appalling that the very bright people making this wealth can't seem to figure out a way to assist their less fortunate sisters and brothers. And let's be honest, many of the nouveau-privileged are just very fortunate people who would do well to recognize the obligation they have to the rest of society. But even noblesse oblige is a foreign concept to the entitled here.
San Francisco is a town with perpetual diversity and a unique ability to reinvent itself. It is ever a town of brilliant, creative, erratic, eccentric people with great entrepreneurial spirit and humanity. It does feel sometimes like that spirit has lost the sense of inclusiveness and community it once had. 1967 might as well be 1849 these days.
I certainly don't hope for a "Tech Comeuppance". I hope for an awakening. A rekindling of the moral obligation that smart, lucky, successful people ought to feel to invest in and support their community.
To quote Jerome J. Garcia, "We would all like to be able to live an uncluttered life. A simple life, a good life. And think about moving the whole human race ahead a step, or a few steps." Is that really so hard to accomplish in a town full of energetic rich thinkers?
For an area with so much influx of capital, it is appalling that the very bright people making this wealth can't seem to figure out a way to assist their less fortunate sisters and brothers. And let's be honest, many of the nouveau-privileged are just very fortunate people who would do well to recognize the obligation they have to the rest of society. But even noblesse oblige is a foreign concept to the entitled here.
San Francisco is a town with perpetual diversity and a unique ability to reinvent itself. It is ever a town of brilliant, creative, erratic, eccentric people with great entrepreneurial spirit and humanity. It does feel sometimes like that spirit has lost the sense of inclusiveness and community it once had. 1967 might as well be 1849 these days.
I certainly don't hope for a "Tech Comeuppance". I hope for an awakening. A rekindling of the moral obligation that smart, lucky, successful people ought to feel to invest in and support their community.
To quote Jerome J. Garcia, "We would all like to be able to live an uncluttered life. A simple life, a good life. And think about moving the whole human race ahead a step, or a few steps." Is that really so hard to accomplish in a town full of energetic rich thinkers?
10
Who's Jerome Garcia.
As if anyone would know .... or care.
As if anyone would know .... or care.
1
"Never trust a hippie."
John Joseph Lydon
John Joseph Lydon
1
What nonsense. California mandates housing development in each metro area in the state. As others have pointed out in the Bay Area it's the responsibility of ABAG to apportion a fair share of housing obligations to each municipality through the Regional Housing Needs Assessment process. In the Bay Area cities are behind on their obligations by 120,000 housing units. If you want to point to point a finger you should be looking at precious Peninsula and East Bay towns who are too special for anything other than single family residential.
Tech buses? Please. They exist because cities like Menlo Park and Cupertino require them as a condition of issuing permits. Transportation Demand Management Agreements are permitted by the State through the environmental review process. Companies like Facebook and Google are 50% temps working at less than stellar hourly rates and coughing up half of that to rent every month. They're only commuting from the City because it's cheaper than SV.
Tech buses? Please. They exist because cities like Menlo Park and Cupertino require them as a condition of issuing permits. Transportation Demand Management Agreements are permitted by the State through the environmental review process. Companies like Facebook and Google are 50% temps working at less than stellar hourly rates and coughing up half of that to rent every month. They're only commuting from the City because it's cheaper than SV.
1
Mayor Ed Lee needs to be kicked out city hall. Tax cuts for tech companies need to end and brought back with an increase to compensate for deregulation. Mayor Ed Lee has screwed our city in the worst inhumane way.
6
I'm sure that economic collapse will improve the fate of the city's weakest. (Tongue in cheek)
Maybe there would not be such competition for space if more high-rise buildings were built. I'm sure most tech people would like to live in modern, well appointed apartments in close proximity to fun old neighborhoods rather than squeeze into older buildings.
Maybe there would not be such competition for space if more high-rise buildings were built. I'm sure most tech people would like to live in modern, well appointed apartments in close proximity to fun old neighborhoods rather than squeeze into older buildings.
2
SF is a constant victim of speculative bubbles. First tech stocks, then mortgages, now VC funding. In between these bubbles, there is plenty of affordable housing for the residents. The greatest threat to SF is speculation, and its driver the Federal Reserve.
1
This isn't really a new problem for San Francisco, is it? I remember when the 1989 quake happened, a colleague who had just moved to Los Angeles from San Francisco the week before cheered when she saw her former apartment building on fire on the TV news.
Get rid of the property-tax-pays-for-school-district ridiculousness and watch the "gentrification" of Bay Area and all its ramifications unravel. Probably won't happen ever, but why not dream?
1
Exciting time here now, indeed. The atmosphere is electric, the charge starting to dissipate ever so slightly perhaps, but for young creative people SF is the place to be. As always.
4
The money for all those massive private shuttles should be devoted to improving public transit for everyone. Since those companies want the city to provide for them without contributing to the city, we'd really like to see them go elsewhere. This toxic boom is affecting the entire Bay Area. We're all hoping for the bust, which will reduce housing costs and trim traffic on the roads and public transit.
12
Ah, yes. Let no good deed go unpunished. Only in the most leftist, quasi-socialist part of the country would residents complain about a boom and get nostalgic for the good old days of economic malaise. What do you expect when nobody owns and everyone rents?
The shuttles take employees from their homes in San Francisco to the jobs in Silicon Valley -- not a trip that's practical on public transit. If you get rid of the shuttles, more of these employees will drive to work, resulting in more congestion and pollution.
2
No, that is not correct, a train has operated between San Francisco and San Jose for over 150 years and commuters have used it for decades...it has been called Caltrain for many years.
1
It is unfortunate that the latest techies have money thrown at them for the garbage they produce, just hoping that something sticks.
The last tech boom here was followed by a tech bust. The snivelers went back home to live with mommy and traffic improved dramatically. Hopefully the fall for this crowd will be even more severe and they can take all their ridiculous apps with them back where they came from.
I am glad that these people spend their lives staring at computer screens - they really don't have a life. There is justice.
The last tech boom here was followed by a tech bust. The snivelers went back home to live with mommy and traffic improved dramatically. Hopefully the fall for this crowd will be even more severe and they can take all their ridiculous apps with them back where they came from.
I am glad that these people spend their lives staring at computer screens - they really don't have a life. There is justice.
17
You do realize you're sitting in front of a computer right now, don't you?
1
Most workers - tech or non-technical - spend most days staring at a computer screen for at least some part of the day. Computers are tools that aid in getting work done.
I've been picking on you Larry but I admit that was a good one.
The city is awash in money and the population has increased dramatically. You might reasonably expect a flowering of art and culture and a general enlivening of the public space.
Nope. These folks are resoundingly uninteresting and absolutely uninterested in anything other than building apps that make life convenient for other upper income white people. The creative class? Don't kid yourself. They build tools that make it increasingly possible to avoid the human contact that they are so bad at.
They do seem to enjoy the banh mih sandwiches and the tacos -- if not the people who make them. But in my neighborhood, which has been overrun by paunchy 20-somethings who look more like the downside of middle age than the start of young adulthood, you could launch a missile down the street at 8:30 p.m. and not hit a one of them. The men in the grey flannel hoodies are tucked away resting up for the early trek down HWY 101. Despite tech’s propaganda, we are witnessing the dulling of San Francisco.
The Silicon Valley Ballet is closing after thirty years amidst the biggest boom in living memory. That says it all.
Nope. These folks are resoundingly uninteresting and absolutely uninterested in anything other than building apps that make life convenient for other upper income white people. The creative class? Don't kid yourself. They build tools that make it increasingly possible to avoid the human contact that they are so bad at.
They do seem to enjoy the banh mih sandwiches and the tacos -- if not the people who make them. But in my neighborhood, which has been overrun by paunchy 20-somethings who look more like the downside of middle age than the start of young adulthood, you could launch a missile down the street at 8:30 p.m. and not hit a one of them. The men in the grey flannel hoodies are tucked away resting up for the early trek down HWY 101. Despite tech’s propaganda, we are witnessing the dulling of San Francisco.
The Silicon Valley Ballet is closing after thirty years amidst the biggest boom in living memory. That says it all.
46
Respectfully disagree. Some fine arts museums are in the city and private galleries. Berkeley and Stanford campus have excellent art museums and are free. Both universities have robust community outreach with world class art and intellectual speakers and public matters forums. Usually free.
1
Aw, nobody is as COOL as the great underemployed, who consider themselves the creative class but have produced not much in the way of creation.
Wow..spot on. And so sad
1
Please. If the City's budget is $8.5B what is that buying? The streets are filthy and in need of being repaved. The homeless are everywhere and the feel of the downtown, except where they are building skyscrapers looks like it's being hollowed out. The City can't support people with average salaries -- teachers, police, retail/restaurant workers, musicians, artists, and more. They are being forced to move out.
16
Just a note of clarification. The City's budget includes MediCal (aka MediCaid) and other state and federal entitlements that flow through the Department of Public Health and the Human Services Agency. Recipients would get those payments regardless where they lived. But still, it's a lot of money for such a small place
The budget is buying votes, nothing more.
1
As a long term SF resident, the biggest problem is total lack of leadership under our present mayor, Ed Lee. He has allowed homelessness to get completely out of control- we are basically a squatter's city where tents and homeless encampments are worse than a third world country. He refuses to even acknowledge the problem, much like he refused to be interviewed for your article. If it's not a ribbon cutting ceremony, you won't get his attention. He forgets that the tax paying residents deserve a clean city that they can once again be proud of.
22
Anybody who supported Supervisors such as Avalos, Campos, KIm, Mar, Daly, Ammiano, Mirkarimi, and Gonzales bears more responsibility for the homeless situation than the current Mayor.
9
No actually the problem is ppl that come here causing the rents to go up and causing more homelessness. I've lived here my entire life, please tell me when SF was a "clean city"??
Allowing taller buildings would help with the housing shortage. As it stands, the people complaining about high housing costs are largely the same people who protest zoning changes that would alleviate them.
20
San Francisco has been bought. My apartment building has flipped three times in three years; two of the last three landlords have tried to evict a 68-year-old seriously disabled woman and her war veteran husband; they managed to hang on by suing them.
If you are a teacher, social worker, nurse, retail worker, small business owner, police or fire dept personnel, city bureaucrat (except at very top), restaurant/hotel worker, physician/dentist just starting out, etc. etc. forget about *ever* being able toafford a house in San Francisco.
Ed "Puppet" Lee, San Francisco's so-called Mayor is little more than a tool for big money. Lee is quiet, but he's just sort of evil in the way that he has seen to it that this city is sold to the highest bidders. Ask around; it's a fact. Tax breaks for the likes of billion dollar companies like AirBnB and Twitter, with nothing in return except for a few token "let 'em eat cake" goodies.
For many San Francisco renters, life has become a waiting game of trying to figure out when the building they live in - after it has flipped 4-5 times - becomes untenable as a rental investment,which will drive the owner to *legally* take the rental unit off the market and displace them.
Another abuse: foreign real estate investors - mostly Chinese - buying everything they can, for cash. Not *one* word about this from Lee. Sad.
If you are a teacher, social worker, nurse, retail worker, small business owner, police or fire dept personnel, city bureaucrat (except at very top), restaurant/hotel worker, physician/dentist just starting out, etc. etc. forget about *ever* being able toafford a house in San Francisco.
Ed "Puppet" Lee, San Francisco's so-called Mayor is little more than a tool for big money. Lee is quiet, but he's just sort of evil in the way that he has seen to it that this city is sold to the highest bidders. Ask around; it's a fact. Tax breaks for the likes of billion dollar companies like AirBnB and Twitter, with nothing in return except for a few token "let 'em eat cake" goodies.
For many San Francisco renters, life has become a waiting game of trying to figure out when the building they live in - after it has flipped 4-5 times - becomes untenable as a rental investment,which will drive the owner to *legally* take the rental unit off the market and displace them.
Another abuse: foreign real estate investors - mostly Chinese - buying everything they can, for cash. Not *one* word about this from Lee. Sad.
47
In fact, I suspect that foreign investment has more to do with prices than tech. I work in tech and although I realize that salaries are higher in San Francisco than here in Seattle, it's not the entry-level tech workers or the young start-up owners who are exploding prices. They make good money, but not enough to buy million-dollar houses (at least not at the beginning of their careers). Start-up CEOs in particular might not make much money at all for a while - if ever: most start-ups fail, and even the ones that succeed only rarely become unicorns. It's really tech executives and the few that get lucky at a unicorn that inflate prices wildly.
1
SF has a long history of boom and bust, it will ever be such, the next big earthquake will "cool the boom" but until then the bay area is hollowing out, inexorably, and will be filled by young techies and related who look exactly like everyone else on the street, wondering what all the fuss is about
3
San Francisco used to be a lovely city, even though it had the Poor and
the Lower Middle Class and Middle Class and Upper Class and Rich.
Recently a friend of mine who grew up in San Francisco had to leave
as his rent was doubled...
Justin Keller has lived in SF for three years and acts as if he owns the city.
the Lower Middle Class and Middle Class and Upper Class and Rich.
Recently a friend of mine who grew up in San Francisco had to leave
as his rent was doubled...
Justin Keller has lived in SF for three years and acts as if he owns the city.
21
50 years ago...free love, weed and flowers
1
Move to the City of St. Louis. This is a very affordable city, with beautiful old, brick houses and buildings waiting for an even more diverse population to move in. The weather is seasonal, but we have some of THE most beautiful spring and fall days that you'll ever experience. We also have some really nice free public spaces for you to enjoy, including Forest Park, Tower Grove Park, and other public spaces.
There's direct flights via Southwest to from SF and OAK to STL. Come check us out. Eat at some really great food and have a look around. We'd love to have you in the City.
There's direct flights via Southwest to from SF and OAK to STL. Come check us out. Eat at some really great food and have a look around. We'd love to have you in the City.
14
How do you think your fellow St. Louisians would react to an influx of people who prefer backyard-grown nut butter carefully ground so that its temperature never rises about 90 degrees Fahrenheit to a rack of ribs, demand vegan frozen soy milk dessert not frozen custard, and debate not *whether* public nudity is permissible but *how much*?
;-)
;-)
5
I was very pleasantly surprised by the attractiveness of St. Louis on a recent visit
6
What a beautiful sentiment...You should be Mayor!
3
Too many left brained types makes for an imbalanced city. As a long time Bay Area resident I have to admit I have greater respect for days when Allen Ginsberg wrote poetry here and the Jefferson Airplane played for free in the park.
That said, I am not adverse to change and happy to welcome the math and science types with all their fun gadgets. It's all good, just as long as they recognize the basic truth that all humans really are created equal -- two lobes, right and left -- each needing equal space, time and resources.
Otherwise there's going to be some collective disturbance and suffering going on somewhere in our greater human (un)reality; and that's not quite the way we want to live here on the left coast, is it?
That said, I am not adverse to change and happy to welcome the math and science types with all their fun gadgets. It's all good, just as long as they recognize the basic truth that all humans really are created equal -- two lobes, right and left -- each needing equal space, time and resources.
Otherwise there's going to be some collective disturbance and suffering going on somewhere in our greater human (un)reality; and that's not quite the way we want to live here on the left coast, is it?
7
On the surface, SFOand LA are cool and laid back, but just below is a dark and bleak core.
SOME people say evictions are a problem? How about every single San Franciscan?
This awful, greed-infested bubble needs to pop, and in case you are in any doubt, it is not just a few, it is the many, MANY Bay Area families, natives and long-time residents who have been thrown from their homes, watched their families and friends forced out, who feel nothing short of hatred at this point.
Hate is a strong word, but until you watch your friend's sick, elderly mother tossed out of her home by a wealthy techie while his industry guts your beloved, open-minded hometown of all it's beauty, and kicks the homeless while they are down....you may not know where anger can bring you.
We are protectors of our beautiful home, not exploiters like the current new residents.
Count me as one native who will now dance upon the employment graves of every tech bro as he falls to ruin. They deserve nothing more.
This awful, greed-infested bubble needs to pop, and in case you are in any doubt, it is not just a few, it is the many, MANY Bay Area families, natives and long-time residents who have been thrown from their homes, watched their families and friends forced out, who feel nothing short of hatred at this point.
Hate is a strong word, but until you watch your friend's sick, elderly mother tossed out of her home by a wealthy techie while his industry guts your beloved, open-minded hometown of all it's beauty, and kicks the homeless while they are down....you may not know where anger can bring you.
We are protectors of our beautiful home, not exploiters like the current new residents.
Count me as one native who will now dance upon the employment graves of every tech bro as he falls to ruin. They deserve nothing more.
30
Stop blaming this housing crisis on rent control, it's simply not true. You're neglecting to mention Prop 13, the root of so many of California's ills. Rent control and Prop 13 go hand-in-hand, and came about at the same time. Funny how some landlords and many conservative commentators never complain about Prop 13 freezing their property taxes in perpetuity, but rent control is the end of civilization as we know it.
If the income generated by the rents at the time of purchase of a commercial property doesn't allow for a decent return on their investment, then the landlord is a poor business person who shouldn't have entered the business in the first place. And the reality is that many landlords inherited their properties and pay far, far below market rates on property taxes. Regardless, eliminating rent control would not fix this in any way, as those that are covered (not all, only pre-1979 buildings) would quickly match the market rates and then the entire city would be nothing but the monied-class.
If the income generated by the rents at the time of purchase of a commercial property doesn't allow for a decent return on their investment, then the landlord is a poor business person who shouldn't have entered the business in the first place. And the reality is that many landlords inherited their properties and pay far, far below market rates on property taxes. Regardless, eliminating rent control would not fix this in any way, as those that are covered (not all, only pre-1979 buildings) would quickly match the market rates and then the entire city would be nothing but the monied-class.
15
Take a look at Venice, CA where the same thing is happening. Google has taken over.
4
Venice, CA is not a city. It is a designated neighborhood in sprawling Los Angeles. The comparison is not apt. Although Venice is certainly a crowded and expensive neighborhood in LA and it does reflect its local business. But if you need affordable housing in LA try the nearby Crenshaw neighborhood.
When I came to the Bay Area, I loved it's diversity- folks came from everywhere and settled here. As a nurse at UCSF, my coworkers were from China, the Philippines, Europe, Africa, Mexico, South America, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Russia, Japan, Southeast Asia - with the most amazing stories to tell about how they got here.
(Nothing to make you realize how blessed you are as someone sitting in the break room, explaining how they were able to escape the Khmer Rouge, and which of their family members weren't)
My husband and I settled in the East Bay, I now work in Oakland - and even there, downtown, I see so much change. Unless you were very lucky (bought a long time ago, or took a gamble in 2009) you're hurting. Most of my coworkers have 90 minute or more commutes, and second jobs. I'm very glad I was able to get here when I did, because back then, it was a magical, much more equal little world all it's own.
(Nothing to make you realize how blessed you are as someone sitting in the break room, explaining how they were able to escape the Khmer Rouge, and which of their family members weren't)
My husband and I settled in the East Bay, I now work in Oakland - and even there, downtown, I see so much change. Unless you were very lucky (bought a long time ago, or took a gamble in 2009) you're hurting. Most of my coworkers have 90 minute or more commutes, and second jobs. I'm very glad I was able to get here when I did, because back then, it was a magical, much more equal little world all it's own.
9
There are still cheap neighborhoods in Oakland and the Eadt Bay, but most NY Times readers wouldn't want to live in them!
Yep, especially if you have kids and care about them.
The current situation in San Francisco/Silicon Valley is painful and frustrating for all involved. However, the blame doesn't really lie with technology companies, or activists, or developers, or long-term residents, all of whom are simply doing what makes sense for them. Rather, it belongs to the local governments of the Bay Area (especially the city of San Francisco) for failing, over a period of decades, to build the transit, housing, and other urban infrastructure necessary to support a diverse, thriving community of workers atop the region's good fortunes.
20
I lived in San Francisco for many years. I loved it, still do, dirt and all.
But I learned that San Francisco wants The City frozen in amber c. 1915 or c.1939 or c. 1967. No one wants it to change. Furthermore, they cannot understand why its 49 square miles should cost so much. Why can't we all just have rent control?
Sfgate is notorious for lamenting the evictions on the one hand and trumpeting the house and restaurant porn on the other.
You really cannot have it both ways.
But I learned that San Francisco wants The City frozen in amber c. 1915 or c.1939 or c. 1967. No one wants it to change. Furthermore, they cannot understand why its 49 square miles should cost so much. Why can't we all just have rent control?
Sfgate is notorious for lamenting the evictions on the one hand and trumpeting the house and restaurant porn on the other.
You really cannot have it both ways.
14
Like Boston, SFO is hemmed in on 3 sides by water. Hard to expand, unlike fly-over cities
Why change something that is good? Why a maddening rate of change just for its own sake? People insist on outer change because they have no inner lives or community relationships that they want to preserve!
We obviously don't teach compassion and morality when a rich guy can complain about having to see the pain in the world around him that his choices are helping to cause.
19
We obviously don't teach morality when a segment of society thinks they are entitled to the fruits of others' labor
18
So judgmental. You have no idea why everyone becomes homeless. Exhausted veterans suffering from PTSD more like. Easy to feel good about yourself if you assume drugs are involved. Am drugs are only a symptom. We need to be more like Denmark and treat the problem. If you are so insensitive try talking to a homeless person and learn their story. They are all PEOPLE who deserve respect. They all have a reason.
4
Yes. in the words of Phil Ochs, "There but for fortune go you or I."
Allowing taller buildings would help with the housing shortage. As it stands, the people complaining about high housing costs are largely the same people who protest zoning changes that would alleviate them.
7
I understand that. Young techies with no attachments might like the idea of high-rise towers, but lots of other people don't want to live in a maze of glass buildings. They want to preserve the single family homes and quirky neighborhoods. Unfortunately that just makes it really expensive. Seems like you can't have it both ways.
For all its liberal veneer, San Francisco is a very conservative city. "Conservative" as in "resistant to change." We seem to collectively feel the need to find a simple villain for complex problems. This time it is "techies" at the head of the historical list of people to blame. The math is that there simply aren't enough "techies" to impact the housing market as significantly as popular opinion would suggest.
Anyone who has lived in the Bay Area long enough knows that housing costs spike at every boom. The current boom goes across many business sectors, not just tech. In addition there are many other factors at work, including a trend of re-urbanization, decades of poor housing supply planning, NIMBYism in the name of "maintaining character" (however, for people who already have their home), etc.
If you are perverse enough to cheer an economic downturn, don't cry when you can't afford a place to live AND you don't have a job.
Anyone who has lived in the Bay Area long enough knows that housing costs spike at every boom. The current boom goes across many business sectors, not just tech. In addition there are many other factors at work, including a trend of re-urbanization, decades of poor housing supply planning, NIMBYism in the name of "maintaining character" (however, for people who already have their home), etc.
If you are perverse enough to cheer an economic downturn, don't cry when you can't afford a place to live AND you don't have a job.
16
You nailed it.
If you run for mayor, we will vote for you.
If you run for mayor, we will vote for you.
Change for its own sake comes from restless minds that don't know what is precious and worth preserving--not just things, but ways of life, policies, neighborhoods etc. Relentless tearing down of the old for whatever is new, good or bad, is unbelievably stupid and childish.
This article misses an important fact: The towns of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties (aka Silicon Valley) for decades have constantly approved the building of car-centric office parks and other expansion of the tech industry, but adamantly resist permitting the building of housing for the workers brought in by that business expansion.
The overflow is now pushing people out of San Francisco, 50 miles to the north; similar stress is building across the bay in Oakland. The agony of the Bay Area was caused and continues to be caused by terrible, outdated urban planning.
Mayor Ed Lee, now in his 5th year in office, has not lifted a finger to call for a meeting the Association of Bay Area Governments to update its plans to accommodate the burgeoning tech industry.
Addressing the housing and transportation problems are essential to the well-being of the entire area, yet has been met by inaction by San Francisco's leadership -- except those who are making a fortune from real estate and tech bubble financing.
The overflow is now pushing people out of San Francisco, 50 miles to the north; similar stress is building across the bay in Oakland. The agony of the Bay Area was caused and continues to be caused by terrible, outdated urban planning.
Mayor Ed Lee, now in his 5th year in office, has not lifted a finger to call for a meeting the Association of Bay Area Governments to update its plans to accommodate the burgeoning tech industry.
Addressing the housing and transportation problems are essential to the well-being of the entire area, yet has been met by inaction by San Francisco's leadership -- except those who are making a fortune from real estate and tech bubble financing.
29
I cannot grasp that $3500 a month for an apartment, but why can't high rises of lower middle class oriented apartments be constructed perhaps by way of special State or city or billions of dollars tech companies guaranteeing bonds.
The article seems overly pessimistic. I only have visited there once, in 1962,
and the area's beauty is extraordinary. Because of the earthquake risk, can they allow enormous buildings--oops, I suppose there are strict limits on height, so never mind.
never mind this note
The article seems overly pessimistic. I only have visited there once, in 1962,
and the area's beauty is extraordinary. Because of the earthquake risk, can they allow enormous buildings--oops, I suppose there are strict limits on height, so never mind.
never mind this note
2
Building high rises for poor people leads to Co-Open City style crime. Bad idea to concentrate poor people into one spot.
6
1
San Francisco and the Bay Area is a magical experience. If you're young and in love with life nothing will keep you away. I know this is not the appropriate venue for comments like this but the crazy beauty of the setting, the rich history and unending cast of characters is a unforgettable experience.
8
That was not my experience, growing up there and living there again in my twenties.
1
The rich history which has been bulldozed by developers living in Miami.
Seattle needs to learn some lessons from SF's journey.
1
RE:
buelteman
montara CA 3 hours ago
As a working artist whose studio was pushed from one neighborhood to another since 1976 as waves of gentrification swept across the City, I can only say I'm glad I left. The "dot-com" boom of the late 90's was the last straw, when our landlord, to whom we never missed a rent payment in 18 years, quadrupled our rent...
That's actually great. For 18 years the value of your studio was unrecognized and you had a bargain rent for 18 years!
buelteman
montara CA 3 hours ago
As a working artist whose studio was pushed from one neighborhood to another since 1976 as waves of gentrification swept across the City, I can only say I'm glad I left. The "dot-com" boom of the late 90's was the last straw, when our landlord, to whom we never missed a rent payment in 18 years, quadrupled our rent...
That's actually great. For 18 years the value of your studio was unrecognized and you had a bargain rent for 18 years!
4
Justin comment that he shouldnt have to see the disadbvantaged on the way to work shows a lack of compassion. with all that money why not contirbute a bit to solving the problem, affordable housing medication jobs. One accident and anyone' can life can change. One miracle and it can go the other way.
The bay area cost of why 39% of your workers are looking elsewhere to work.
The bay area cost of why 39% of your workers are looking elsewhere to work.
3
Nobody wants to see beggars. They are unappealing and annoying. No need to be so pc about these people.
4
After coming here regularly for 20 years, this school teacher and professor husband decided to spend part of their retirement here. Armed with our MUNI passes, we regularly go to a variety of free events. We have found a varied selection of good, inexpensive places to eat, a favorite being a chinese restaurant in Pacific Heights where for $7 you can get a fabulous bowl of soup, entree and hot tea. Utility prices are lower because of the temperate climate. Utility costs are ten times higher in Ohio. There is comfort in the stability if San Francisco real estate taxes. In Ohio, our governor "cut taxes", so to cover loss of state funding for necessary services, local property taxes increased by 50% even though our Ohio house value decreased by 35%. But saying all of this I recognize that we regular Joe's are only able to live in San Francisco because our children are grown and we can get by with less space. The cost of housing, roughly $1200/sq ft continue to increase and had we not bought three years ago, I doubt we would be able to afford our small two bedroom place today.
7
Ah, Kasich.
1
My kids go to the school mentioned at the bottom. The whole Google bus thing is nuts and needs to be revamped. It is danegerous, infuriating and the optics completely nauseating. Every day the plugged in technorati stand in line to board the cushy buses as people sleep in the streets. Sometimes I feel like SF is an out of control roller coaster, moments of pure joy and elation punctuated by fear and a dizzying momentum of change. I'm a native New Yorker and have lived here for 25 years and raising a family on a moderate income is challenging--yesterday I bought my kid a $4.95 slice of pizza after an orthodontist appt. in the Mission. I was so flabbergasted at the price I took to social media to confirm that I was not delusional, that indeed that was twice the price of NYC. Change is gonna come...
7
And the slice in NYC would've been the size of a large paper plate and included a Coke.
1
Consider putting your kid into a public school!
3
@Darya Mead --
In your "challenging" moderate income lifestyle, where does the $20k -plus tuition you pay to the private Synergy school fit in? I am not so much judging as pointing out that you have made a choice to stay in SF and to raise a child here. But that choice involves the continuing abandonment of the public schools by middle class families -- a choice that contributes to the downward spiral of public education in the city. I am sure you must have imagined other choices -- a small and maybe affordable house in the East Bay or elsewhere where public school would have been good enough?
Something is keeping you in SF -- What is it? You didn't mention whether you own or rent -- but unless you've been buying $5 slices all these years without first noticing the price, you might have saved enough for a down payment in all that time. Flats and houses in the Mission were definitely not sky high even 10 years ago.
Just saying .....
In your "challenging" moderate income lifestyle, where does the $20k -plus tuition you pay to the private Synergy school fit in? I am not so much judging as pointing out that you have made a choice to stay in SF and to raise a child here. But that choice involves the continuing abandonment of the public schools by middle class families -- a choice that contributes to the downward spiral of public education in the city. I am sure you must have imagined other choices -- a small and maybe affordable house in the East Bay or elsewhere where public school would have been good enough?
Something is keeping you in SF -- What is it? You didn't mention whether you own or rent -- but unless you've been buying $5 slices all these years without first noticing the price, you might have saved enough for a down payment in all that time. Flats and houses in the Mission were definitely not sky high even 10 years ago.
Just saying .....
2
Ironic that there is so much wealth inequality in the most liberal large city in the state.
6
Noblesse non oblige.
4
Having lived in SF and the nearby suburbs for 17 years, I can say there are two sides to this argument. The city government of SF, whose budget has increased by $2.5 billion (30%) in 5 years due to the influx of tech revenues, has done little to change its highly restrictive building codes (outside of one downtown area) to allow an increase in housing supply. The vast majority of the new residents of San Francisco are young childless tech workers with private health insurance who put almost zero burden on city services other than traffic and transit, leading one to wonder where all the tax revenue went. Throughout the Bay Area people lament the cost of housing on one side, and then vociferously object to any new housing development in their neighborhoods on the other. The result? Record high prices and very very long commutes for all but the most affluent workers. Those same commutes contribute to a very high carbon footprint, which is not consistent with the Bay Area's own self image as "pro environment."
23
I just want to point out that the tuition for the Synergy School is $20K per year. I would also like to point out that that is more than many reputable colleges. I think the definition of "haves" needs to be clarified.
8
I think this goes to the heart of the problem. So many people who are "haves" don't believe they are "haves" and therefore don't believe they are part of the problem and don't need to be part of the solution.
Having grown up as very much a "have not", I fully recognize that I am now a "have" and try hard to make a difference for others.
Having grown up as very much a "have not", I fully recognize that I am now a "have" and try hard to make a difference for others.
1
It's ironic that the city that most of America vies as a bastion of socialism is so completely in thrall to to big money. As someone who lived across the Bay for years, I can testify to the enormous financial and psychological strain that Bay Area residents feel.
The talk is still liberal/socialist, but the walk is all brutal capitalism. Most of the people I know in the Bay Area are modestly paid, and they all are just hanging on by their fingernails- packing into housing shares or stalling eviction from apartments they moved into 20 years ago. That stress has a strange effect on the mind. Most of the people I know aren't trying to do anything new with their lives. Their minds are frozen in a kind of perpetual nostalgia.
I'm surprised at how little innovative action San Francisco has taken to address the root of the problem. How about a kind of "commuter tax?" If rich techies use the city as a stylish home, but commute out of it towards Silicon Valley, they would have to forfeit another 10 or 15% of their income. Pair that with a steeply-rising progressive city income tax and just unabashedly redistribute income. All of which would go into building affordable housing for the service workers and other modestly-paid professions that are necessary for a functional city.
I'm a native Californian- saddened that the state is increasingly a bunch of sprawling slums on the outskirts of a few Disney Lands. A great fantasy, but a brutal reality.
The talk is still liberal/socialist, but the walk is all brutal capitalism. Most of the people I know in the Bay Area are modestly paid, and they all are just hanging on by their fingernails- packing into housing shares or stalling eviction from apartments they moved into 20 years ago. That stress has a strange effect on the mind. Most of the people I know aren't trying to do anything new with their lives. Their minds are frozen in a kind of perpetual nostalgia.
I'm surprised at how little innovative action San Francisco has taken to address the root of the problem. How about a kind of "commuter tax?" If rich techies use the city as a stylish home, but commute out of it towards Silicon Valley, they would have to forfeit another 10 or 15% of their income. Pair that with a steeply-rising progressive city income tax and just unabashedly redistribute income. All of which would go into building affordable housing for the service workers and other modestly-paid professions that are necessary for a functional city.
I'm a native Californian- saddened that the state is increasingly a bunch of sprawling slums on the outskirts of a few Disney Lands. A great fantasy, but a brutal reality.
18
Commuter tax will also hit those who got priced out of their homes in the city...
I lived worked and went to high school in the City when it was a mix of blue and white collar industries, housing reasonable and available, problems of homelessness confined to 3rd and Howard, the City's skid row. It was a very white town with African Americans and Asians kept out of most districts. My family felt that sting. The police routinely raided gay bars. But for most of the residents, the town was very livable, easy to get around and exceedingly beautiful, with free and accessible cultural institutions that were never crowded. Liberal politics was alive and transforming what needed to be changed. There was far less than a car per household.
I never go there these days, horribly hard to visit even in the outlying districts, throngs of sad homeless everywhere, smelly and dirty, crowded and rude, high end culture priced out of the range of all but the elite. It may look very lively but for me it is a dead zone. its mystique gone and captured into a caricature of what it once was, a charade. All these eager youngsters filled with the lust for money and material success have found their heaven by turning it into a hell of jostling insecurity and a rage to be 'in' on the latest whatever is going on, an illusionary life at best as the Tech Gold Rush wrecks the town.
I never go there these days, horribly hard to visit even in the outlying districts, throngs of sad homeless everywhere, smelly and dirty, crowded and rude, high end culture priced out of the range of all but the elite. It may look very lively but for me it is a dead zone. its mystique gone and captured into a caricature of what it once was, a charade. All these eager youngsters filled with the lust for money and material success have found their heaven by turning it into a hell of jostling insecurity and a rage to be 'in' on the latest whatever is going on, an illusionary life at best as the Tech Gold Rush wrecks the town.
15
$3500 for a one bedroom but no mention of any possibility of increasing housing supply in this article—not for SF and not for Silicon Valley proper. Nor any mention of profit motive of landlords to who charge this—not tech newcomers. Really?
No mention that unlike NYC, the SF Bay Area lacks a central government to manage such concerns. Imagine that for New York! Imagine if each borough was its own city, utterly unbeholden to its neighbors.
Finally, ironic to note that some of the same folks that resisted for decades high rises (and incumbent infrastructure to support density) that would change the city's character are now being driven out by a changed city's character.
No mention that unlike NYC, the SF Bay Area lacks a central government to manage such concerns. Imagine that for New York! Imagine if each borough was its own city, utterly unbeholden to its neighbors.
Finally, ironic to note that some of the same folks that resisted for decades high rises (and incumbent infrastructure to support density) that would change the city's character are now being driven out by a changed city's character.
11
If it's any consolation...
My son tells me that Google expects its bus-commuters to work during the bus ride between SF and Google (in Mountain View, south of here). Since that's a 90-minute commute, each way, that transforms an 8-hour day into an 11-hour day.
I don't know how many bus riders work on the bus, but I suspect many do. Very little in life is actually free, and Google's commuter bus ain't one of them.
My son tells me that Google expects its bus-commuters to work during the bus ride between SF and Google (in Mountain View, south of here). Since that's a 90-minute commute, each way, that transforms an 8-hour day into an 11-hour day.
I don't know how many bus riders work on the bus, but I suspect many do. Very little in life is actually free, and Google's commuter bus ain't one of them.
4
The bus commute counts as part of your workday, since you're working during it. So not an 11-hr day unless that's what you would ordinarily work (depends on your group whether that would be the norm)
Would you rather that the workers drive to Google? I think the traffic is already bad.
Too bad that San Mateo county refused to vote for the bond issue in the 60s which would have extended BART to Silicon Valley and cost millions not billions.
Too bad that San Mateo county refused to vote for the bond issue in the 60s which would have extended BART to Silicon Valley and cost millions not billions.
8
It will be interesting when tech workers who have kept careful track of their hours get laid off or leave for some other reason sue for unpaid overtime plus imterest. This has happened in the Silicon Valley before.
1
Some won't mourn if tech bubbles hit. Sorry, but these are the envious ones who can't compete with other people's rising incomes. They may not see the same pretty city skyline from 30 years ago but that's not what keeps a San Francisco running. A burgeoning well earning tax paying population keeps retail, restaurants, rents, trains running. If the rent is too high, move out and find accommodation in the suburbs, like I did. And yes, I do work in software.
7
Tech workers are disproportionately upscale young and single. They do not burden the schools, the police or fire nearly as much as other residents. They regularly patronize local restaurants and entertainment businesses. The high rents they pay allow for high property tax revenues. Their purchasing power allows for high sales tax revenues. They live in a city with housing costs that gouge them. They pay inordinate taxes and place minimal financial burdens on the city. The city victimizes them through its housing costs rather than vice versa. The folks of San Francisco have it all backwards. Those who work for the tech industry are overpaying the city, and those who benefit claim to be the victims.
25
San Francisco's Mayor Lee and his advisers are reading from the same playbook that you are quoting -- or maybe wrote. Until about now, those are exactly the kinds of arguments they have held and defenses offered for letting the city go where the tech residents feel like taking it.
4
No one ever mention the ordinary folks who benefited tremendously from rising property prices by virtue of at some point scraping together enough to own a home. Most housing in SF are owned by regular people, whether white collar workers or immigrants working two shifts to achieve the American Dream.
When I meet a butcher or a drycleaner owner and learn that they have managed to buy a duplex -- one unit to live in and one to rent out -- and raised decent children, my believe in America as an open society and as still the land of opportunity is reaffirmed. Sure, no system is perfect. America, and SF, have their ills. But just look around the world and we will quickly realize why 90% of them would want to be here. Or take our eyes off the two Coasts and look at the vast swath of middle America, and we'll be thankful for "suffering" in a booming economy.
Those who wish for a downturn just may get it, as IMF has been frantically waving the flag of global downturn. Then, we can complain about going upside down on our mortgages, losing our jobs, shuttering businesses...and believe me, SF properties do go into recession. It took the market 10 years to crawl out of the 1989 bust.
We desperately need to look at ourselves in the mirror: WE are the problem. One can't refuse to build AND have abundant affordable housing. And so on. Let's take a page from The Martian: "You solve the problem right in front of you. Then you solve the next one...and the next one."
When I meet a butcher or a drycleaner owner and learn that they have managed to buy a duplex -- one unit to live in and one to rent out -- and raised decent children, my believe in America as an open society and as still the land of opportunity is reaffirmed. Sure, no system is perfect. America, and SF, have their ills. But just look around the world and we will quickly realize why 90% of them would want to be here. Or take our eyes off the two Coasts and look at the vast swath of middle America, and we'll be thankful for "suffering" in a booming economy.
Those who wish for a downturn just may get it, as IMF has been frantically waving the flag of global downturn. Then, we can complain about going upside down on our mortgages, losing our jobs, shuttering businesses...and believe me, SF properties do go into recession. It took the market 10 years to crawl out of the 1989 bust.
We desperately need to look at ourselves in the mirror: WE are the problem. One can't refuse to build AND have abundant affordable housing. And so on. Let's take a page from The Martian: "You solve the problem right in front of you. Then you solve the next one...and the next one."
Just to be clear, high rents do not translate into higher property tax revenues in California. Prop 13, passed in 1978, effectively capped property taxes based on purchase price. It's completely possible in the bay area to have two nearly identical tract houses next door to one another, and the original owner is paying $1200 in property taxes, and a new owner pays $17,000.
1
And folks wonder why Bernie Sanders even got to where he is....want a level playing field, vote for someone who will tip the scales.
4
San Francisco *already* has Bernie Sanders-style governance. As do Berkeley and Oakland, which face the same inequality issues as SF.
The inability of "progressive" politicians to do anything other than inflict nanny laws on residents, squander tax proceeds, and decrease the quality of life for everybody is not a theory in the Bay Area...it's the REALITY.
The inability of "progressive" politicians to do anything other than inflict nanny laws on residents, squander tax proceeds, and decrease the quality of life for everybody is not a theory in the Bay Area...it's the REALITY.
12
Big Government has been a total disaster, so the only answer is... Bigger Government!
4
Upon arriving in 1994 my partner and I found a rent controlled 2 bedroom/1 bathroom top floor apartment with great views in Noe Valley for around $1,300 a month. It wasn't high end by any means but the view and proximity to 24th street made it ideal. We gave it up for family issues and after a year in Oakland's Jack London Square, we decided in 2003 to move back to San Francisco just as the Iraq War was dominating the world news. With 100% financing and no money down we purchased a condominium for what was to us an exorbitant price in a newly built apartment building now dwarfed by the high rises featured in the accompanying photo. Since the neighborhood was basically a weekday parking lot left over from the tear down of the central freeway with no services and trash strewn streets, we knew the financing and price presented us with an opportunity to become home owners in our chosen city. Of course over the thirteen years our neighborhood has changed substantially and I realize this doesn't apply to most renters but it can be done in spite of the obstacles this city presents. As with most booms, a bust is never too far behind.
3
Those quaint Victorian/Edwardian houses need to be demolished and high rises put in their place. If SF wants to be megalopolis it needs to behave not like a boutique tourist trap but a real city. So sick of the "we want it all" mentality. Well you can't have it all and also call yourself a 21st century city.
6
The city's become a bland monoculture with NYC prices for a far lower quality of life. Not good for anyone. 'Rooting for a downturn' is putting it politely.
8
Just wait a little longer until the music stops with the next Wall Street/financial crisis, then everything will go back to normal. All that out of thin air, printed money the Fed threw at the banks had to go somewhere and this time it was Techn that got artificially inflated by the centure capitalists.
As a resident of San Francisco, I should say that Ed Lee, the mayor of SF, is an incompetent mayor. This beautiful city deserves a more competent mayor. He is just popular with Chinese-American residents and the rest of the population as far as I know aren't happy. His office doesn't respond to the media queries by the respectable media such as New York Times and Washington Post, let alone the individual residents.
20
Same as it ever was. I've lived here since 1990 and we are now in the 4th cycle of real estate boom, (followed by real estate bust) that have happened in that time. The problem is that San Francisco is a very desirable place to live. Until that ceases to be true, there will continue to be much hand wringing over affordability. Things should improve when the Big One hits, especially since most home owners don't have earthquake insurance, and will have to walk away from properties they can't afford to repair or continue paying mortgages on. Real estate will be cheap then, if a little worse for wear.
4
I'm a 3rd generation San Franciscan who rented out my inherited house and moved to CH 9 years ago when I couldn't find a good public middle school to send my daughter to. I thought I'd be back when she went to college. She's about to graduate from UNC-CH. I'm now at the point I won't even visit. I have only 2 friends I grew up with who are still there. It's really not bearable for any native anymore, which is clear from the Vanishing SF posts many of us follow (RIP Liverpool Lil's). I'm saying this and I have a FREE house to live in. Anyway, as a public school teacher I'd feel grossly out of place in my hometown. Happy to keep charging my renters a rock-bottom 2,750 for the single family house with a backyard and garage. Guess I'm doing my part to help the rental situation? Have at it.
6
Originally moved to San Francisco from Ohio in 1978 at the age of 19. Long before tech, paid $200 for a 1BR on a busy street, the bus took 10 minutes to get to my job, the bus arrived every 5 minutes on the dot.
Rented many places in the intervening years, always had a goof deal. Didn't buy, that was my mistake. Finally bought in outer suburb during the crash, paid $128K for a 3 BR house in 2009, now valued at $300-325K.
Face it people, it CAPITALISM, don't like it, too bad, not going to change.
Northern California is in my humble opinion, the best place to live in the United States. So if you can't afford it or don't want the commute, don't move here. Please don't move here. Evening rush hour starts at 1pm.
Rented many places in the intervening years, always had a goof deal. Didn't buy, that was my mistake. Finally bought in outer suburb during the crash, paid $128K for a 3 BR house in 2009, now valued at $300-325K.
Face it people, it CAPITALISM, don't like it, too bad, not going to change.
Northern California is in my humble opinion, the best place to live in the United States. So if you can't afford it or don't want the commute, don't move here. Please don't move here. Evening rush hour starts at 1pm.
11
This just sounds silly; akin to wishing SoHo would convert back to a sketchy hellhole so "artists" can move back. Progress is good. If living in one of the most expensive cities in the world is important to you, you shouldn't study education (teaching) in college—try finance or computer science. Breaking news: Teachers don't make $200k a year or get stock options.
13
But unless all those high-paid workers forego having kids, they're still going to need teachers with salaries.
7
Malthus of M Street.
3
Several of the largest corporations should simply build or acquire one or two high- or mid-rise buildings and offer units at well below market rents giving priority to employees or restricting all units to their workforce. While no one wants SF to become a "company town," MetLife did this with Styvesant Town for decades and it had some impact on rental prices. In SF, which is much smaller than Manhattan, the impact would be even larger.
1
Great suggestion!
FWIW MetLife built a similar development in S.F. waaay back in the '50's and it is called Parkmerced. It was affordable and well managed when Metlife ran things but neither is the case currently.
I voted against the anti-AirBnB proposition last fall, but only because it was so poorly drafted. I suspect a better-written proposition will appear and get approved.
Many voters simply concluded it wasn't worth the bother. We already have a law restricting AirBnB (though enforcement is somewhere between lax and non-existent), and most people focused on only one element of the proposition: the maximum number of days per year for AirBnB rentals would have been reduced from 90 to 75. There was a lot more to the proposition than just that, but that's all most voters noticed, and their reaction -- hardly surprising -- was: That's not a good enough reason to change things.
I have a feeling the anti-BnB people (personally, I don't care much either way) are doing their homework on what went wrong, and they'll be back with a proposition that will get passed. Many anti-BnB types believe the housing crisis would ease considerably if AirBnB weren't so attractive. My own son, for example, kept his apartment long after he'd moved back in with us, just because he could make money renting it out on AirBnB. If that ended, a lot more rental housing would hit the market here (and in other cities).
Many voters simply concluded it wasn't worth the bother. We already have a law restricting AirBnB (though enforcement is somewhere between lax and non-existent), and most people focused on only one element of the proposition: the maximum number of days per year for AirBnB rentals would have been reduced from 90 to 75. There was a lot more to the proposition than just that, but that's all most voters noticed, and their reaction -- hardly surprising -- was: That's not a good enough reason to change things.
I have a feeling the anti-BnB people (personally, I don't care much either way) are doing their homework on what went wrong, and they'll be back with a proposition that will get passed. Many anti-BnB types believe the housing crisis would ease considerably if AirBnB weren't so attractive. My own son, for example, kept his apartment long after he'd moved back in with us, just because he could make money renting it out on AirBnB. If that ended, a lot more rental housing would hit the market here (and in other cities).
1
It's actually not "a lot". The Examiner estimated that the number of full-on rentable units taken off the market due to Airbnb was about 325. SF has an average of 2.2 people per unit (I don't have more specific stats than that), so you're looking at perhaps 1,000 people displaced from rentals due to Airbnb according to existing research. Hardly the problem when 10,000 new people are trying to move here each year.
Personally, as a property owner, tenants are a nightmare. It's nearly impossible to evict a bad tenant. One of my neighbors rented out her tiny condo (she got married and had kids & they moved to a bigger place; it was 2007ish and she was underwater). Tenant didn’t pay rent; it took 6 months to evict the person. That was about $15,000 my neighbors were personally out of pocket.
I would much rather earn some money with short-term rentals than deal with permanent tenants. I'm terrified I'd never be able to get them out. And threaten all you want; you can't make me put my separable unit on the rental market. Shut down Airbnb and I'll just have a bigger house.
Just one example of the perverse incentives created by SF's renter protection laws...
Personally, as a property owner, tenants are a nightmare. It's nearly impossible to evict a bad tenant. One of my neighbors rented out her tiny condo (she got married and had kids & they moved to a bigger place; it was 2007ish and she was underwater). Tenant didn’t pay rent; it took 6 months to evict the person. That was about $15,000 my neighbors were personally out of pocket.
I would much rather earn some money with short-term rentals than deal with permanent tenants. I'm terrified I'd never be able to get them out. And threaten all you want; you can't make me put my separable unit on the rental market. Shut down Airbnb and I'll just have a bigger house.
Just one example of the perverse incentives created by SF's renter protection laws...
Large tech companies could make more of an effort to improve the local community and it's schools (the underperforming ones). For example, perhaps engineers could go into schools and become role models. They can work with teachers and help teach a class on coding, etc. That could go a long way in raising achievement at low-income schools and help close the the gap in educational inequality which is the root of poverty, crime, etc.
The brightest minds are at these major tech companies and they could be doing MUCH MUCH more than padding their own bank account and bemoaning the unsightly homelessness problem (ahem Mr. Keller).
The City needs to develop and or/update policies regarding affordable housing for specific occuptions such as teachers, nurses, city workers that make under 100K/year. For example, in Manhattan when a developer builds a condominium there is a mandated X amount of units that are set aside for affordable housing vs market rate. People apply and those who meet the criteria can live there.
The brightest minds are at these major tech companies and they could be doing MUCH MUCH more than padding their own bank account and bemoaning the unsightly homelessness problem (ahem Mr. Keller).
The City needs to develop and or/update policies regarding affordable housing for specific occuptions such as teachers, nurses, city workers that make under 100K/year. For example, in Manhattan when a developer builds a condominium there is a mandated X amount of units that are set aside for affordable housing vs market rate. People apply and those who meet the criteria can live there.
1
So sorry, but you live in Los Altos? Prices are just as bad there! We just sold our 4-br there and moved back into SF. How can you possibly be so sanctimonious from a community 4 miles from Google, LinkedIn, and Microsoft and just as populated by millionaires as SF? Where, despite crazy property taxes, the schools are utterly mediocre?
The way tech employees contribute is by paying income taxes (federal and state) and property taxes (1.14%).
Do you volunteer? The only people I knew in Los Altos who volunteered in schools were people who didn't work because their spouses were rich enough to support them on one income.
By the way, I DID look into volunteering with SF schools. Programs are hard to find; they all seemed to want volunteers during the middle of the workday. The background checks are (understandably) stringent.
Seems like my best bet is to generate a pile of income that gets taxed and goes to the city's $2.5b annual budget – and let the elected professionals do the jobs they were hired to do.
The way tech employees contribute is by paying income taxes (federal and state) and property taxes (1.14%).
Do you volunteer? The only people I knew in Los Altos who volunteered in schools were people who didn't work because their spouses were rich enough to support them on one income.
By the way, I DID look into volunteering with SF schools. Programs are hard to find; they all seemed to want volunteers during the middle of the workday. The background checks are (understandably) stringent.
Seems like my best bet is to generate a pile of income that gets taxed and goes to the city's $2.5b annual budget – and let the elected professionals do the jobs they were hired to do.
1
I am surprised San Fran hasn't figured out how to do away with private property and implement a Marxist "to each according to his needs" approach.
2
What's Driving up SF rents, real estate, wages? Simple Supply and Demand. Shortage of housing, driven by restrictive development policies in the name of protecting the poor drive up rents and real estate. New city taxes, regulations that drive up costs, such was wage laws, extra benefits, work place rules, means that its 30% more expensive to run a restaurant, store, dry cleaner than nearby cities. Small business owners in turn have to raise prices to pay the extra cost of running a business in SF.
The fastest way to make SF affordable, but probably less livable, is to build more housing in a very dense environment, make it easier for small businesses to open and compete. But Liberal ideology to restricting, regulating, controlling housing, jobs do the exact opposite of that.
Sadly, basic economic aptitude is something that is not a qualification for politicians here in SF.
The fastest way to make SF affordable, but probably less livable, is to build more housing in a very dense environment, make it easier for small businesses to open and compete. But Liberal ideology to restricting, regulating, controlling housing, jobs do the exact opposite of that.
Sadly, basic economic aptitude is something that is not a qualification for politicians here in SF.
6
I had lived in the Bay Area in the early 80's, and was excited to visit my daughter, to escape the Boston winter of 2015. What I discovered was a city that was sparkling and beautiful from Sausalito but up close found the city to be filthy, and in generally in rough shape with homeless people on every corner. It was very sad. And, my daughter moved back to Boston due to the lack of affordable housing.
3
I couldn't agree more. There is garbage everywhere. I have visited many foreign countries where people had more pride in the appearance of their cities and towns.
I lived in SF for more than 25 years but left in 2001 because of the early tech boom and the changes it brought to this wonderful city. Now I live about an hour north, in Petaluma (southern Sonoma County), although I still go to the city a lot. The changes feel tragic in SF, and I hope someday the city can right itself. I said when I left that my former working-class neighborhood there had become clogged with what felt like a single class of richer people, all wearing black turtle necks - perhaps tributes to Steve Jobs -- who seemed indifferent to the culture they were moving into. Now it's happening again, or maybe in never stopped happening.
Recently when I was visiting the city I took part of the afternoon to try to think through why I loved the city so much, still - sitting near Chrissy Field I decided it was the fog horns, the way the air feels when the fog tools in, the gorgeous views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay, my routine walks up the Lyon Street steps. That beauty remains and will always be there for me.
Recently when I was visiting the city I took part of the afternoon to try to think through why I loved the city so much, still - sitting near Chrissy Field I decided it was the fog horns, the way the air feels when the fog tools in, the gorgeous views of the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay, my routine walks up the Lyon Street steps. That beauty remains and will always be there for me.
12
It's just capitalism. It's the way it works. For those with short memories, or no memories, rents skyrocketed in the dot com boom, forcing businesses out of their accustomed locations. In Pleasanton, antique stores on the main street were forced to relocate because rents went up by a factor of five. So one asks, what idiot is willing to pay five times the rent of a place?
I think the idealism of high tech is fast wearing off. It's just another industry. After the dot com boom, so-called millionaires on paper were worth what they were before they joined those startups. Helana Corda's friends will encourage her to join those startups until they are laid off.
California is boom and bust. It comes with the territory. It's the place where one can start anew and make big money. Many times. And communities suffer through this cycle.
I think the idealism of high tech is fast wearing off. It's just another industry. After the dot com boom, so-called millionaires on paper were worth what they were before they joined those startups. Helana Corda's friends will encourage her to join those startups until they are laid off.
California is boom and bust. It comes with the territory. It's the place where one can start anew and make big money. Many times. And communities suffer through this cycle.
2
"Be careful what you wish for" seems to be the message of several non-SF commenters, advising that we shouldn't hope for the tech boom to end.
Most of us don't want it to end. We just want it to slow down a bit, not come crashing down suddenly. When Uber (still a private company) has a valuation (last I checked) of about $60 billion, you start to get a little uncomfortable, and that's just one of many frothy valuations.
My sons, well-plugged-in to the high tech world, tell me that young people are far more skeptical than others that the boom will continue. They're certainly not rooting for a crash, but they'd prefer a slow-down – especially if that gets rents down to some reasonable level.
Part of the reason SF rents seem so high is that, historically, SF rents were LOW in relation to purchase prices (which have always been high here). Decades ago, SF building owners would pay so much for their buildings that very few could break even renting them. I still remember an old cartoon posted in a local restaurant that captured the phenomenon well: A young couple was sitting at a restaurant table, lamenting their inability to buy a house. One of them said to the other: "We're just going to have to live in Pacific Heights until we can afford to live in Pacific Heights." What that meant to us fellow-renters at the time was this: "We're just going to have to rent in Pacific Heights until we can afford to buy in Pacific Heights."
Most of us don't want it to end. We just want it to slow down a bit, not come crashing down suddenly. When Uber (still a private company) has a valuation (last I checked) of about $60 billion, you start to get a little uncomfortable, and that's just one of many frothy valuations.
My sons, well-plugged-in to the high tech world, tell me that young people are far more skeptical than others that the boom will continue. They're certainly not rooting for a crash, but they'd prefer a slow-down – especially if that gets rents down to some reasonable level.
Part of the reason SF rents seem so high is that, historically, SF rents were LOW in relation to purchase prices (which have always been high here). Decades ago, SF building owners would pay so much for their buildings that very few could break even renting them. I still remember an old cartoon posted in a local restaurant that captured the phenomenon well: A young couple was sitting at a restaurant table, lamenting their inability to buy a house. One of them said to the other: "We're just going to have to live in Pacific Heights until we can afford to live in Pacific Heights." What that meant to us fellow-renters at the time was this: "We're just going to have to rent in Pacific Heights until we can afford to buy in Pacific Heights."
2
Purchase prices have NOT always been high in S.F., I'm a native and when I was growing up there in the '60's and '70's large parts of town were blue collar and middle class and buying was an viable and affordable option for many. The runup began in the late '70's though I know plenty of middle income people who still managed to buy a place into the mid '80's with some difficulty.
Something very similar can (and should?) happen in NYC. After Google moved in to Chelsea and, shortly thereafter, the rise of Silicon Alley . . . I dunno, but it all feels frothy and unsustainable.
1
it's not just the tech boom that is driving Bay Area housing costs through the roof. Billions of dollars of what I will describe as shady money is being invested in real estate in order to launder it. Much of this comes from China's wealthy and corrupt elite. The federal and state governments have no interest in curtailing this as they consider all currency inflows to be a good thing, regardless of the source.
20
Really. There is a growing "private market" for housing that is ideal for the Chinese who are all over local real estate. A house never even goes on the "open market" -- so how do those non-discrimination-in-housing laws apply, if at all? -- and the Chinese buyer pays in cash. Regular folks have no chance at all. None.
10
Mr. Peskin can have the opinions he has because he already owns his. His family has been here forever.
6
San Francisco has a lot of space where more housing could be built, and it could develop in a wonderful city with great public transportation and housing for many more. There are vast tracts of the city that are used sub-optimally, many large semi-empty warehouses and industrial areas let there to rust and gather dust, there is so much that could be done to house more people.
Why is this not happening? Why is new construction so hamstrung? Why there is no great public transport being planned at all? Why isn't Muni being extended to South SF, and high density housing built on all that semi-used industrial land?
I think the high prices are as much a result of disfunctional city politics as of the tech boom.
Why is this not happening? Why is new construction so hamstrung? Why there is no great public transport being planned at all? Why isn't Muni being extended to South SF, and high density housing built on all that semi-used industrial land?
I think the high prices are as much a result of disfunctional city politics as of the tech boom.
9
""San Francisco has a lot of space where more housing could be built, ..."
-------
Where is all that land? I don't see it. Golden Gate Park? THe Presidio?
"... and it could develop in a wonderful city with great public transportation and housing for many more."
------
It's crowded as it is. I can't see how "many more" people could live here comfortably. We don't want to be like Hong Kong:
http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/03/the-dizzying-cityscape-of-hong-...
-------
Where is all that land? I don't see it. Golden Gate Park? THe Presidio?
"... and it could develop in a wonderful city with great public transportation and housing for many more."
------
It's crowded as it is. I can't see how "many more" people could live here comfortably. We don't want to be like Hong Kong:
http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2016/03/the-dizzying-cityscape-of-hong-...
9
Ah yes, if you want to live there comfortably, have a height limit of 2-3 stories, density limits, etc, then yes, prices go up. But then you lose the right to complain about it.
2
much of the city is one or two stories by code which many would say is a waste of land. if you don't see land, you make it. nothing money and a bulldozer can't handle. you don't see any opium dens and saloons with the creaky floors in SF any more do you?
I'm not going to disagree with any of the sentiment here. There's a reason I live in North Bay and not in the City (lots of reasons, actually).
But you guys must get that the prices are what they are because people are paying those prices. No landlord or restaurateur is sitting behind a desk wondering why no one is paying the outrageous prices listed out front. SF is wildly expensive for the same reason NYC is. Because there are tens of millions of people thrilled to be paying 5x as much to say they live in a Capital of the Universe.
Supply and demand aren't new things.
But you guys must get that the prices are what they are because people are paying those prices. No landlord or restaurateur is sitting behind a desk wondering why no one is paying the outrageous prices listed out front. SF is wildly expensive for the same reason NYC is. Because there are tens of millions of people thrilled to be paying 5x as much to say they live in a Capital of the Universe.
Supply and demand aren't new things.
7
There's something particularly tasty about sanctimonious people who demand high taxes and regulation as the price for being welcomed into decent society complaining about the high cost of living their policies inevitably bring.
3
It's not the high taxes that make SF unaffordable. And everything is regulated (whether by markets or states), it's just a question of how it's regulated and how resources are inevitably allocated.
2
Been to Seattle lately? At this point, probably a minor league tech upheaval compared to the Bay Area, but Seattle and area is moving toward the majors fairly quickly, even to the point of some people talking about a tech bubble. I moved to Seattle from Honolulu via England in 1972 when Seattle was a blue-collar unionized town with Boeing the big dog. Plenty of cheap rentals. But, San Francisco once was a cheaper place to live in 1959 than my hometown -- Iowa City. Things change. Is all change for the worse?
4
And just to remind Times readers, it isn't just techies that are the problem. It's also the foreign buyers - often filthy rich - often leaving their homes and apartments empty most if not all of the time (think Chinese who buy homes near Stanford for when their 5 year old will be ready to attend - meantime leaving the house vacant while they live in China!). In the East Bay, it is also still large investment firms buying up houses all cash over asking, shutting out local families.
The Obama administration opened the door to wealthy Chinese buyers - they have real estate consortiums scouring the Bay Area, the state and the country for real estate. One consortium here has over 3000 Chinese realtors representing who only knows how many buyers. It isn't pretty.
Then again, wealthy Americans are certainly doing the same thing overseas, but not in such large numbers.
The Obama administration opened the door to wealthy Chinese buyers - they have real estate consortiums scouring the Bay Area, the state and the country for real estate. One consortium here has over 3000 Chinese realtors representing who only knows how many buyers. It isn't pretty.
Then again, wealthy Americans are certainly doing the same thing overseas, but not in such large numbers.
20
Head 45 minutes south on the Peninsula to Palo Alto. Imagine a Stanford PhD Physicist earning 200K per year living in 1100 sq. ft apartment at the tune of 6500. per month and yes...with a noisy air conditioner in the window! Fixer uppers here start at 2 million and housing continues to appreciate at an alarming 20% per year. Down payments are nearly impossible for many, let alone the ongoing property taxes due each year. Awaiting rent control to become a priority in Palo Alto.
1
Rent control will make things worse. Just look at NY and SF. Rent control limits the supply of rental units. I don't know why anybody making only $200k would choose to live in Palo Alto and pay $6500k in rent. That sounds just crazy. Just buy a car and move 10 miles south.
3
I lived in SF from 1990-2004. My wife and I left when we decided to start a family. Even then it seemed prohibitively expensive. If we looked long enough we probably would have found something, but we decided to move to Oakland where there was more open space and better weather, and cheaper houses.
I've continued to come to the city every day to my job and did not expect to miss living here much. I was right about that, but what I did not expect was the feelings of annoyance with the city that I once vowed never to leave. Yes, the new generation of techies can be obnoxious and obtuse, but from my perspective the real problem is the city government and it refusal to do anything serious about the housing situation. My first inkling that there was something amiss came in the late 90's after a trip to Vancouver, BC. It is a city that is similar in many ways. I saw lots of new housing being built in the form of high rises and lots of single family home construction going on, and what struck me upon returning to "The City", was that there was almost none of that happening in SF.
Now, our once marginal neighborhood in West Oakland is rapidly becoming hipster heaven. An influx of the lower tier techies is swamping the Oakland and turning the Mandella corridor into a hot market. We recently moved to a nice neighborhood and paid dearly for our new house but we will probably reap a hefty profit from a little house that once sunk to $145K in 2009. Crazy!
I've continued to come to the city every day to my job and did not expect to miss living here much. I was right about that, but what I did not expect was the feelings of annoyance with the city that I once vowed never to leave. Yes, the new generation of techies can be obnoxious and obtuse, but from my perspective the real problem is the city government and it refusal to do anything serious about the housing situation. My first inkling that there was something amiss came in the late 90's after a trip to Vancouver, BC. It is a city that is similar in many ways. I saw lots of new housing being built in the form of high rises and lots of single family home construction going on, and what struck me upon returning to "The City", was that there was almost none of that happening in SF.
Now, our once marginal neighborhood in West Oakland is rapidly becoming hipster heaven. An influx of the lower tier techies is swamping the Oakland and turning the Mandella corridor into a hot market. We recently moved to a nice neighborhood and paid dearly for our new house but we will probably reap a hefty profit from a little house that once sunk to $145K in 2009. Crazy!
5
$8.6 BILLION BUDGET???
That's almost 4 times as much as my STATES budget!!
WOW!!!!
That's almost 4 times as much as my STATES budget!!
WOW!!!!
6
Well, SF has almost double the population of Wyoming -- and, as you can see, a much more complex economy.
6
The population of the City of San Francisco is larger than your whole state's.
5
Yes, and the City has more than twice the population of your entire state. Yet the entire state of CA has the same representation in the senate as WY.
You wanna get all CAPSLOCK about something, let's start there.
You wanna get all CAPSLOCK about something, let's start there.
1
There isn't one major city in America where blue collar workers have to commute much farther than professionals. All the other complaints are similar as well, just amplified in the Bay Area. It's not so much a Silicon Valley problem, as it is a global one for all of modern societies. The only four things you can do are 1) raise minimum wages; 2)strengthen labor laws/support rights to unionize;3)offer educational/training support;4)supplement preschool and mass transit. Beyond these things, in a capitalistic based society there are limits to the wisdom of artificially bending economic reality. If you want cities that are modern and clean, it takes a lot of money. Gentrification is not a sin, it's a benefit. We don't have a right to live in neighborhoods we can't afford. America has thousands of nice, affordable places to live. I'd suggest the complainers move to one of those, if the Bay Area is now intolerable to them. Quit wasting your life fighting other people's success, you will never win. History shows this to always be true. Make your own success, in a place you feel comfortable doing so.
6
You're comments miss two points. 1. In SF it's not just working class but middle class people who feel extremely squeezed. That's also probably why this story gets more attention than other instances of gentrification. 2. For many people, SF has not just been a generic American city, but a place where a special and unique culture was built, that has been virtually obliterated by the boom economy, which is itself built largely on financial speculation. So this is the destruction of a great city's bohemian culture due arguably to the excesses of capitalism, not it's ideal working. People will mourn the loss of this old city as it makes way for a more generic, hyper capitalist culture. When that boom eventually fades (which granted may not be for decades), what was lost can probably never be replaced. SF is still a great city, but it was special in other ways as well. Even as I move back to the city as someone who can now really afford it, I completely understand that it's no longer the magical and amazing place it long was.
1
I appreciate your love for the way the city was, I know it well. Unfortunately, there is no formula to change it back. Neighborhoods and cities change over time. Sometimes good, other times bad... but change is an unstoppable force. People in some parts of NY, Chicago, LA, Boston and Miami have the exact same issue. You can lament it, you can't change it. I chose to leave California to be able to afford a comfortable retirement. I don't blame anyone. Life with moderate weather near a spectacular coast will always be an order of magnitude more expensive. There is no legislation in the universe that can change that.
3
Hope for an economic downturn to hurt tech companies. Now that's real SF thinking.
3
I recently took a trip through the Southwest, driving through Phoenix, Tucson, El Paso, Albuquerque, and Santa Fe. By the time I got to El Paso I started to make some notes regarding prices. In Albuquerque, gas was $1.27/gallon, rent in a newish place a few blocks from the university was $450 for a one bedroom and $800 for a two bedroom, (including WiFi and common areas.) A little ways out on the way to Santa Fe, you could buy two and three bedroom homes for $200,000, some even less. In Santa Fe itself, nice homes were going for under $300,000. In El Paso, it was substantially less.
People in the Bay Area look down their noses at these cities, but I found them quite cosmopolitan, extremely friendly, with many cultural amenities. (Phoenix is another story entirely. If you are considering urban Arizona, skip it and go to Tucson.)
People in the Bay Area look down their noses at these cities, but I found them quite cosmopolitan, extremely friendly, with many cultural amenities. (Phoenix is another story entirely. If you are considering urban Arizona, skip it and go to Tucson.)
3
Income inequality within the context of globalization is a basic issue in San Francisco. Seen within this context, tech companies are but one contributing component to the problems faced by San Francisco. One of the less visible components of skyrocketing housing and rental prices is the high percentage of very wealthy people from China and other parts of the world seeking to invest their money in San Francisco by buying not only luxury homes of several they own around the world but many rental units, especially in the new luxury high rises to lease as investments. This means that anyone buying here has to compete with these cash buyers for limited housing supply.
This is promoted by such housing developers as Vanke, the largest Real estate developer from China which advertises to sell properties it builds in S.F. to these investors.
To blame the tech companies for all the ills of the San Francisco economy is short sighted. They are merely a group of renters who can afford rent but not the basic cause of income disparity which is due to globalization, albeit, a San Francisco goverment that promotes such money losers as Super Bowl City and tax breaks for techs instead of truly addressing City problems.
This is promoted by such housing developers as Vanke, the largest Real estate developer from China which advertises to sell properties it builds in S.F. to these investors.
To blame the tech companies for all the ills of the San Francisco economy is short sighted. They are merely a group of renters who can afford rent but not the basic cause of income disparity which is due to globalization, albeit, a San Francisco goverment that promotes such money losers as Super Bowl City and tax breaks for techs instead of truly addressing City problems.
9
Can you explain how the tech workers are to blame for the increased rent prices? Aren't landlords and property management companies to blame for increasing the rent prices? Tech workers do not increase rent- landlords and poor city policies that restrict the amount of housing do (e.g. rent control).
2
Kevin, it's true that landlords increase the price, but the reason that they can, aside from high demand, is the overvalued and highly speculative tech economy. That is the missing link. So it's not the tech workers who are to blame for the high prices, but really the finance guys, who are all betting in the hopes of making a killing. The beef that most of these comments have with the tech workers is that they represent a shift in the social and cultural makeup of the city, away from its diverse and bohemian elements and toward elements that more uniform in their backgrounds and pursuits.
1
From the 1950s to the 1980s wealthy Americans left the cities for the suburbs - almost every city in America. Poverty and crime took over the cities. Everyone complained there wasn't enough money to address the cities' problems.
Now there's a resurgence of American cities in both coasts, the Midwest, the South - everywhere. Yet, everyone complains that there's too much money.
Go figure!
Now there's a resurgence of American cities in both coasts, the Midwest, the South - everywhere. Yet, everyone complains that there's too much money.
Go figure!
4
Having moved to San Francisco two years ago from the Midwest, I can say that I love the city as is. Could it be better? Of course! But when I compare the pros and cons, there are very few cities in the country that have the quality of life that San Francisco provides.
As for the Googlers who commute 3 hours everyday to and from the South Bay, I feel they are wasting their time on a bus and neither enjoying SF or the South Bay.
As for the Googlers who commute 3 hours everyday to and from the South Bay, I feel they are wasting their time on a bus and neither enjoying SF or the South Bay.
3
Your attitude is much too positive for this article. Begone until you learn to be miserable!
3
SF's Board of Supervisors and their supporters, despite their supposed concern for the middle and working classes, have been the driving force behind the ridiculous state of SF's real estate market for decades:
*SF has a boom and bust economy because politicians and neighborhood activists pick which businesses are allowed to operate in San Francisco. If City Hall and NIMBY groups were not allowed to to choose private sector winners and losers, the City economy would have a broader, more stable base which would help maintain a more rational housing market.
*Challenging all proposed buildings at the ballot box keeps all but the most motivated and deep pocketed real estate investors out of SF.
*A high-stakes, idiosyncratic development approval process dominated by a few key political figures makes any project that might increase SF's housing supply a lengthy, corrupt, graft-ridden, and highly inefficient undertaking. Very few builders and investors can afford to supply the required payouts, free apartments/condos, no-show jobs, and 'consulting' gigs.
*Stopping all new construction and building conversions is in landowners' interest, especially in attractive districts like Telegraph Hill and Noe Valley, because it keeps rents and purchase prices high.
Supervisor Peskin and others who blame Silicon Valley for all of San Francisco's housing ills really need to take a long look into a mirror.
*SF has a boom and bust economy because politicians and neighborhood activists pick which businesses are allowed to operate in San Francisco. If City Hall and NIMBY groups were not allowed to to choose private sector winners and losers, the City economy would have a broader, more stable base which would help maintain a more rational housing market.
*Challenging all proposed buildings at the ballot box keeps all but the most motivated and deep pocketed real estate investors out of SF.
*A high-stakes, idiosyncratic development approval process dominated by a few key political figures makes any project that might increase SF's housing supply a lengthy, corrupt, graft-ridden, and highly inefficient undertaking. Very few builders and investors can afford to supply the required payouts, free apartments/condos, no-show jobs, and 'consulting' gigs.
*Stopping all new construction and building conversions is in landowners' interest, especially in attractive districts like Telegraph Hill and Noe Valley, because it keeps rents and purchase prices high.
Supervisor Peskin and others who blame Silicon Valley for all of San Francisco's housing ills really need to take a long look into a mirror.
4
"Sorry if your view is obstructed or it becomes less quaint, but building high rise apartment buildings is the only way to allow the very people who define the quirky character of the city to continue living there."
We SF residents understand this better than you think, but we prefer to concentrate the high-rise development in a few areas. Salesforce.com is building a 70-story building right downtown, and got that through with virtually no opposition. It will go up right above the Transbay Bus Terminal, which means that many (most? nearly all?) people who work in that high-rise will pay taxes in SF but expect very little in the way of services. Their children, for example, will go to school somewhere else.
We SFers like that sort of development. There's another type of development we don't mind: development that's far away from where nearly everyone lives. That's why two very large waterfront projects, both on the south shore of the Bay, got approved overwhelmingly.
What we DON'T like, however, are high-rises or other dense building out in the neighborhoods. Lots of opposition to that. I have a hunch it's pretty much the same way in other parts of the country.
We SF residents understand this better than you think, but we prefer to concentrate the high-rise development in a few areas. Salesforce.com is building a 70-story building right downtown, and got that through with virtually no opposition. It will go up right above the Transbay Bus Terminal, which means that many (most? nearly all?) people who work in that high-rise will pay taxes in SF but expect very little in the way of services. Their children, for example, will go to school somewhere else.
We SFers like that sort of development. There's another type of development we don't mind: development that's far away from where nearly everyone lives. That's why two very large waterfront projects, both on the south shore of the Bay, got approved overwhelmingly.
What we DON'T like, however, are high-rises or other dense building out in the neighborhoods. Lots of opposition to that. I have a hunch it's pretty much the same way in other parts of the country.
4
Well it's nice to see NIMBYism expressed so openly. You like office buildings going in but you don't like building homes for those workers to live in? You expect everyone to commute in on the Bay Bridge every morning? It's because of people who have views like yours that hospital workers and teachers have to live in Vallejo or Tracy.
6
NIMBYism? I plead guilty.
"You expect everyone to commute in on the Bay Bridge every morning?"
No – they should ride BART. Better yet, find a job closer to where they live.
People commute to SF from Vallejo or Tracy because SF jobs pay more. But why should SF get jammed full of high rises just so people from Vallejo and Tracy can live closer to high-paying SF jobs? They could take lower-paying jobs in Vallejo or Tracy. Better for the environment, better for SF, better for Vallejo and Tracy.
Companies would be wise to look long and hard at places like Vallejo and Tracy, and locate more jobs there. People who live there probably don't like the commute very much. They'd much prefer to work closer to home.
A new equilibrium will get established as employers figure all this out. Building high rises in SF neighborhoods just delays that.
"You expect everyone to commute in on the Bay Bridge every morning?"
No – they should ride BART. Better yet, find a job closer to where they live.
People commute to SF from Vallejo or Tracy because SF jobs pay more. But why should SF get jammed full of high rises just so people from Vallejo and Tracy can live closer to high-paying SF jobs? They could take lower-paying jobs in Vallejo or Tracy. Better for the environment, better for SF, better for Vallejo and Tracy.
Companies would be wise to look long and hard at places like Vallejo and Tracy, and locate more jobs there. People who live there probably don't like the commute very much. They'd much prefer to work closer to home.
A new equilibrium will get established as employers figure all this out. Building high rises in SF neighborhoods just delays that.
2
I lived in San Francisco 20 some years ago, and I visit regularly, though less & less, precisely because of these changes & tensions. It isn't just the money & the economic division & the crowding that is the problem. It's the attitude (excuse the generalization, but that's all it is) of the kids who work in tech. They think that the world belongs to them, and that anyone who doesn't work for the tech industries should expect to be ruled by those who do. They think of themselves as the cutting edge of creativity & innovation but they are they most conformist, conservative materialistic generation that this country has ever seen. They have no social awareness & little humanity. San Francisco was sleepier & more precarious 20 years ago, but an infinitely better place to live.
27
A resident, I have mixed views but certainly zipping around the city in your new Carerra as if you were at Disneyland will not win you favor.
5
Why can't these tech elite just pay their taxes, and live and work someplace else?
2
Those waiting for the boom to bust will be waiting a long time. The world is being digitized -- and all digital roads lead through San Francisco. Every click leaves a penny -- and that accumulation of wealth has pushed artists, teachers, and working class folks -- anyone who didn't already own a house before the dotcom boom, and wasn't able to snap one up at the bottom of the recession -- out.
Once the world has been transformed, the tide will recede. It's a boom and bust cycle, absolutely -- akin to the Gold Rush. That's the San Francisco story, too.
But the old, weird San Francisco is being washed away. Yes, if you own a home, you're a millionaire. Congratulations. But if you don't, you're homeless.
The good news is that SF artists are fleeing to second-line cities all over the country. Those places will benefit from what San Francisco has lost.
But make no mistake: what has happened to San Francisco is a purposeful colonization by the tech companies. Like all other colonizations, the indigines are not happy, and the colonists are oblivious to the destructive force of their arrival.
The irony is that all the great culture that was the reason for having hteir workers live in SF is being wiped out. So that instead of going to bars and meeting guitarists and painters and getting great ideas, they're going to bars and meeting ... other computer programmers.
Once the world has been transformed, the tide will recede. It's a boom and bust cycle, absolutely -- akin to the Gold Rush. That's the San Francisco story, too.
But the old, weird San Francisco is being washed away. Yes, if you own a home, you're a millionaire. Congratulations. But if you don't, you're homeless.
The good news is that SF artists are fleeing to second-line cities all over the country. Those places will benefit from what San Francisco has lost.
But make no mistake: what has happened to San Francisco is a purposeful colonization by the tech companies. Like all other colonizations, the indigines are not happy, and the colonists are oblivious to the destructive force of their arrival.
The irony is that all the great culture that was the reason for having hteir workers live in SF is being wiped out. So that instead of going to bars and meeting guitarists and painters and getting great ideas, they're going to bars and meeting ... other computer programmers.
26
"Those waiting for the boom to bust will be waiting a long time. The world is being digitized -- and all digital roads lead through San Francisco."
You have a short memory? World has been digitized for decades now and the bust has come twice in the last 16 years.
You have a short memory? World has been digitized for decades now and the bust has come twice in the last 16 years.
1
Equally troublesome is that the tech boom is pushing up the price of rentals in the East Bay. Now retired and a long time Oakland resident, I currently pay an affordable rent. However, the owner of the building is 85 and in ill health. Were I to lose this apartment, I would be forced to move out of the area. This is my home.
7
Blame it on the 2008 financial bailout and quantitative easing. All that money pumped into the banking system has created these bubbles in tech and in housing. So when all your money goes toward rent and food, that's why. It's called the giant transfer of wealth and the creation of a new oligarchy.
7
Amy gets it!
1
It's not just the City where housing/rent prices are going through the roof, it is in Marin, the East Bay (Berkeley, Albany, El Cerrito, Concord, Walnut Creek etc.). Much of it is driven by greed led by the high techs and start ups and fueled by angel investors and angel investors. They gamble that one out of ten investments will come through, go public and make them tons of money. It is like playing roulette with only ten colors to land on. If rents get too high the tech industry will move to another location with cheaper rent; Sacramento, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton etc. They will then drive up the rents then.
4
As a Bay Area resident for almost three decades, I never cease to marvel at the outrage of the entitled so eloquently expressed in these comments. Apparently SF has become an awful place because they or their ilk cannot afford to live there. Trust me, the majority of SF and the Bay Area are doing just fine. If "39 percent of Bay Area adults said they thought things in California were headed in the wrong direction", then 61% feel things are OK or better.
Back in the early 90s, I was unemployed in the Bay Area. I left for the Midwest for an year and a half. I badly missed NorCal. But I was lucky to find a job here again when the economy improved, and have managed to make a living through two downturns since then. If things turn sour I will move out again with my family.
City of SF has a budget of over $8B for a population of just 800K (4 times per capita government compared to San Jose). It spends $240 million annually for its 7500 homeless, i.e, $32,000 per person.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million...
To support this massive bureaucracy they need large tax base of rich people. They force developers to build subsidized housing in an area with limited land for development, further ensuring that only the rich can afford to bear the cost of the market-rate housing and pay for that subsidy. Of course, the average "progressive" care neither for basic math nor basic economics, as long as they can blame someone.
Back in the early 90s, I was unemployed in the Bay Area. I left for the Midwest for an year and a half. I badly missed NorCal. But I was lucky to find a job here again when the economy improved, and have managed to make a living through two downturns since then. If things turn sour I will move out again with my family.
City of SF has a budget of over $8B for a population of just 800K (4 times per capita government compared to San Jose). It spends $240 million annually for its 7500 homeless, i.e, $32,000 per person.
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/S-F-spends-record-241-million...
To support this massive bureaucracy they need large tax base of rich people. They force developers to build subsidized housing in an area with limited land for development, further ensuring that only the rich can afford to bear the cost of the market-rate housing and pay for that subsidy. Of course, the average "progressive" care neither for basic math nor basic economics, as long as they can blame someone.
12
Yes! SF doesn't have a housing crisis. It has a self-created housing shortage coupled with a self-created extremely high cost of living.
If the City's politicians and electorate shifted their focus from hobbling private economic activity as much as possible, enabling the homeless, and inflicting nanny laws on residents to assisting the working poor, decoupling SFUSD and CCSF from the political machine so that they can focus on educating students, and cultivating a balanced mix of large and small, startup and established businesses, random chance would not have to be the only way for people of modest means to live in San Francisco.
But that's not the "progressive" way.
If the City's politicians and electorate shifted their focus from hobbling private economic activity as much as possible, enabling the homeless, and inflicting nanny laws on residents to assisting the working poor, decoupling SFUSD and CCSF from the political machine so that they can focus on educating students, and cultivating a balanced mix of large and small, startup and established businesses, random chance would not have to be the only way for people of modest means to live in San Francisco.
But that's not the "progressive" way.
I sympathize with young people trying to afford the sky-high rents in SF (including my own three sons, who still live with us). When I moved here just over 40 years ago, I found a large, sunny 1-BR apartment in Pacific Heights for $325 a month, which was a bit above average. The same apartment now would be well over $4,000 a month. A lot of inflation since then, but not THAT much.
5
Shelter, if not a basic human right, should at least be kept affordable for the masses. In every major global metropolis since 2010 we have witnessed those flushed with capital bidding up property prices not for shelter, but for investment and speculation, as the excess liquidity created by central banks empowers its beneficiaries seeking returns in real estate. It is unconscionable how ordinary folks have been priced out of the market.
4
The City could set caps on the price of rent based on the landlords business costs for example say P, so if a unit costs the landlord $1000 per month then they can charge $1500 for the unit. This will keep landlords from taking advantage of the rental market and incentivize them to spend more because the more the place costs them, the higher their percentage would be.
Blaming techies for high rents...? they are victims of high rents too. More like blame property owners. Old time San Francisco residents who decided to cash out and sell their rentals.
3
Bangalore went through this with the outsourcing boom in the 2000s. The city is now unlivable.
1
Seattle is going through a similar transformation. The biggest issue I see is newcomers who insist the city adapt to them rather than the newcomers adapting to their new home. The privilege and cluelessness of Justin Keller--the poor dear who doesn't want to see the homeless riffaff--is emblematic of the entitled attitude of the nouveau tech-rich. The history of the city doesn't matter to newcomers; the heritage and the culture must be molded to their way of life rather than the reverse. The homogenization of our great cities is a cultural loss, but the pushing out of the working and middle classes is even worse. It destroys the diversity of a city.
12
What is particularly concerning is that the average tenure of an Amazon worker is something like 14 months (just long enough not to have to re-pay their signing bonus). I am not opposed to new people moving into a community - I am from elsewhere myself - but I question whether our new techie neighbors have any commitment to their new community, or if they will just take the money and run. Anyway, the least we can do is to levy an income tax, which Washington lacks, and which would mean that the state would benefit from the new wealth.
2
There are forces so much bigger than San Francisco at work here. I wonder about how we might once again shift the American dream so that the young, ambitious, and talented are led to feel like they have (or want to choose from?) more than a small handful of options. I welcome this sort of tension as an opportunity for stoking our collective imagination.
4
Our family was forced out of the bay area by the high cost of living and poor school choices in 2006. We relocated to Seattle, which is a slightly less intense version of the same problem outlined in this article right down to Microsoft shuttles blazing through the neighborhood, Amazon taking over a formerly affordable downtown region, and housing costs skyrocketing--with no rent control or protections. With inflated salaries and white collar tech workers there is an enormous cost for the educators, clergy, non-profit workers, and others who contribute to the community. Ultimately, there needs to be better ways to provide affordable housing and good public transportation for highly impacted regions.
6
Honestly, San Franciscans would rather have radical reform in housing policy - a massive expansion of the Below Market Rate program, for example - than wish ill upon the tech industry. As tone-deaf and insular as tech bros can be, they're a symptom, not the disease.
If you are a San Franciscan thinking of moving to Seattle to avoid these kinds of problems, just don't.
Someone(s) already had that idea, and it's ruining this place too.
Someone(s) already had that idea, and it's ruining this place too.
6
>>>>>
This pretty much proves my point.
This maybe the worlds biggest piece of garbage.
"The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city,” he wrote in an open letter, adding: “I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day.“ (He later said using the word “riffraff” was “insensitive)"
This is right up there with let them eat cake; the cause essentially being the same so should the effect.
This pretty much proves my point.
This maybe the worlds biggest piece of garbage.
"The wealthy working people have earned their right to live in the city,” he wrote in an open letter, adding: “I shouldn’t have to see the pain, struggle and despair of homeless people to and from my way to work every day.“ (He later said using the word “riffraff” was “insensitive)"
This is right up there with let them eat cake; the cause essentially being the same so should the effect.
5
This is but one manifestation of a broader global issue: population explosion. This phenomenon had been making NYC difficult to live & work in for decades now. Let's see if we can jam 5 million more people into the 5 boroughs. You can trace almost all of mankind's problems back to the single, simple truth that there are simply too many of us on the planet. It is a basic human instinct to migrate where our existence is most easily sustained and resources are most bountiful. At the moment, seems like that is in & around major metro areas. I don't see this trend reversing anytime soon.
12
Not really. Just physics.
Somehow, this entire article was written without addressing the real problem. They even quoted Aaron Peskin but didn't read even the slightest bit more into the issues he causes.
Tech is not the problem.
"Locals" and NIMBYs have been voting down proper city growth policies for years and voting in politicians like Peskin who protect their city views instead of building housing for the millions of people that want to live here. They are profiting off this boom at the detriment of everyone else. They are the reason rents are so high and property values continue to soar. They are a plague and call themselves "progressive".
Tech is not the problem.
"Locals" and NIMBYs have been voting down proper city growth policies for years and voting in politicians like Peskin who protect their city views instead of building housing for the millions of people that want to live here. They are profiting off this boom at the detriment of everyone else. They are the reason rents are so high and property values continue to soar. They are a plague and call themselves "progressive".
5
Well said.
Further, if you really want an eye-opener about how "progressives" view the rental market and its participants, take a look at the SF Tenants Union guide for renters.
In addition to step-by-step instructions on how to find a squat and head off any removal attempts, the sections on economics and building owners could have been written by Marx and Engels. Seriously. Anybody who takes even a cursory look at the Guide will soon realize the SFTU are much more radical than they let on to the media.
Further, if you really want an eye-opener about how "progressives" view the rental market and its participants, take a look at the SF Tenants Union guide for renters.
In addition to step-by-step instructions on how to find a squat and head off any removal attempts, the sections on economics and building owners could have been written by Marx and Engels. Seriously. Anybody who takes even a cursory look at the Guide will soon realize the SFTU are much more radical than they let on to the media.
1
I am surprised some real estate developers havent thought of a way to fill in SF Bay to build more housing
1
With Big Government rent control there's no profit to be made. Why would anybody start a business with no profit or even prospect of a profit? Would you work for free?
1
Many cities are already on landfill. I worked at the Hyatt Regency back in 1989 when the Loma Prieta earthquake hit. It was only open for less than a year and had to close for a year of earthquake repairs. So, landfill isn't the safest ground to build in the Bay Area. Foster City, Redwood Shores and other areas have landfill areas. I live in Contra Costa County and the developers are constantly building new high-dense housing. Unfortunately, there is no viable train that stretches the 680 corridor to alleviate the heavy traffic. It is getting worse each year. I am fortunate because I found a job one mile from where I live, an incredibly lucky thing for the Bay Area. I love it.
Actually, there WAS a plan afoot back in the 1950s to do just that. A group of concerned East Bay residents came together and worked to make sure it did not happen. See more at: http://www.savesfbay.org/history
Using rent controls of putting limits on whether landlords can sell their properties only serves to favour a lucky few who happen to get into a rent controlled or otherwise regulated unit. These are usually not those who need them, but rather those who are crafty enough to game themselves into one. Meanwhile less market-value supply just means higher rates for everyone else. Like most social engineering plans, it results in the opposite of its intended effect in the long term.
3
I wish the tech boom would actually produce than all the hype and hot air that it does. Every time someone rehashes or relabels some old thing it suddenly becomes worth billions. Airbnb? Apartment finder. Uber? Taxi dispatch. Yeah they're probably better done than the past but generally a long way from their explosive valuations. Get real guys. You shouldn't be destroying a city for the sake of your bubble.
62
This place has been and is Gold Rush City, since 1849. It's nothing but Boom, Bust, Boom.Bust. And that cycle has "destroyed" the city many a time as the latest bubble has arisen, taken over and popped. That's what they do here.
1
We moved from the Bay Area in the late 90s, when the writing was on the wall for increasing unaffordability. As a graphic designer with a teacher wife, we knew the "good life" was probably out of reach there. In the Sacramento area (about 100 miles away), we recently upgraded to a modern 3,000 sq. ft. home in a nice community we purchased for $375K. We can afford to live well here.
Meanwhile, back in San Jose, my brother lives in a 1,300 sq. ft. house (in bad need of repairs and updating) on a tiny lot built in 1957 that is currently valued at well over $1 million. I'm not going to make any political statements about this, but you have to admit, the contrast is startling.
Meanwhile, back in San Jose, my brother lives in a 1,300 sq. ft. house (in bad need of repairs and updating) on a tiny lot built in 1957 that is currently valued at well over $1 million. I'm not going to make any political statements about this, but you have to admit, the contrast is startling.
6
A situation clearly not unique to SF.
Somehow, our society places so much value on certain things over others. Like the ability to post pictures of your kid, your dog, or your meal, whilst really mining your data so someone can see you something. Yet teachers, cooks, service people, and so many more needed cogs in our society are valued so poorly they need to live an hour away from where they work.
Here in Napa, most tasting rooms jobs pay about $15/hr with few, if any benefits...selling $80-$150 bottles of wine to wealthy tourists. One cranky long time 'got-mine' Napa resident claimed in the local paper that Napa has plenty of affordable housing-it's called Fairfield (about 30-45 min commute on a good day to most wineries).
Forget $15/hr-make the minimum wage a % of the median income-that might level the playing field a bit. And yes, that means that your slice of pizza will cost $7 and a beer at a bar will cost $12. If you are making enough to pay $3500/mo for a one bedroom, this is in line. Maybe the pizza guy can live less than an hour away then.
Somehow, our society places so much value on certain things over others. Like the ability to post pictures of your kid, your dog, or your meal, whilst really mining your data so someone can see you something. Yet teachers, cooks, service people, and so many more needed cogs in our society are valued so poorly they need to live an hour away from where they work.
Here in Napa, most tasting rooms jobs pay about $15/hr with few, if any benefits...selling $80-$150 bottles of wine to wealthy tourists. One cranky long time 'got-mine' Napa resident claimed in the local paper that Napa has plenty of affordable housing-it's called Fairfield (about 30-45 min commute on a good day to most wineries).
Forget $15/hr-make the minimum wage a % of the median income-that might level the playing field a bit. And yes, that means that your slice of pizza will cost $7 and a beer at a bar will cost $12. If you are making enough to pay $3500/mo for a one bedroom, this is in line. Maybe the pizza guy can live less than an hour away then.
6
We are 25 miles northeast of SF and have the same issues. I've become acutely aware of the plight of restaurant workers, teachers, landscapers, retail salespeople, or household help who have to commute as long as two hours in clogged traffic each way from their affordable homes to get to their jobs here. These cities and towns have surplus funds which could be spent wisely on better public transport, affordable public housing, and to fund day care and public schools.
Even without the poor example of governance around here, those who can afford it could organize ways to distribute food and clothing to those in need, and tech and other large companies could collaborate and agree to require their employees to spend a day or two a month doing community service.
Even without the poor example of governance around here, those who can afford it could organize ways to distribute food and clothing to those in need, and tech and other large companies could collaborate and agree to require their employees to spend a day or two a month doing community service.
3
While I think there may be some speed bumps tech companies hit I don't think it's going to be anything like what some of residents are hoping for. Companies like Facebook and Google will hit snags but grow further as they adapt to future markets. San Francisco just happens to be at the right spot at the right time..or you could say another variation of that. Look, the tech companies are going to take over the rest of the bay area whether people like it or not. I root for it, revive Oakland and other areas. I do think cities though need to come together and try to leverage the presence of these companies with funds to develop infrastructure, improve school etc. I'm not going to say public housing as I'm not a fan of public housing..I rather see money going to trains that can go speeds like that of those in Japan and China so to connect areas like Stockton to the bay area in under 30 minutes etc. Maybe that's the hyperloop instead..but some sort of transportation to connect lower income areas to allow those areas to eventually rejuvenate just as well.
I can only imagine that eventually the Bay area and other tech hubs like Seattle will run out of room and companies will need to start basing out in Baltimore, Boston (outside to Concord/Manchester NH.) As they spread and find other locations other cities rejuvenate and do better. Shrug maybe the opposition in the Bay area is a good thing then..push those companies out. Philly and Trenton could use a few.
I can only imagine that eventually the Bay area and other tech hubs like Seattle will run out of room and companies will need to start basing out in Baltimore, Boston (outside to Concord/Manchester NH.) As they spread and find other locations other cities rejuvenate and do better. Shrug maybe the opposition in the Bay area is a good thing then..push those companies out. Philly and Trenton could use a few.
This article reminds me of a scene from a Simpsons episode:
The entire Simpson family is in the water in SF Bay, their boat having capsized. Marge shouts to the others: "Let's swim to San Francisco!" Homer replies: "No, let's swim to Oakland; we can't afford San Francisco!"
The entire Simpson family is in the water in SF Bay, their boat having capsized. Marge shouts to the others: "Let's swim to San Francisco!" Homer replies: "No, let's swim to Oakland; we can't afford San Francisco!"
4
If you replaced the words 'tech workers' with 'tourists' you'll describe the similar problems that exist coast to coast in resort/vacation destination towns/areas. AirBnB (& others) are making the year round housing impossible. The entire nation is coping with the haves and have nothings. Welcome to the fact we're getting overpopulated in many metro regions. Boston, NY, Miami, Seattle and others are all dealing with the same issues. People will continue to move to these desirable, high income job cities.
Then they all go on vacations or buy second homes in seasonal places and make life impossibly expensive there too. Think Cape Cod, San Juan Islands, Maine and Vermont.
Oh well, I guess the rest of us riff-raff can all move to South Dakota instead.
Then they all go on vacations or buy second homes in seasonal places and make life impossibly expensive there too. Think Cape Cod, San Juan Islands, Maine and Vermont.
Oh well, I guess the rest of us riff-raff can all move to South Dakota instead.
10
Less than 2 hours up the road, Sacramento offers what SF cannot- affordable housing and a growing city. We'd be happy to ease some of the Bay Area pressure.
1
... and 105° in the Summer ;-)
3
Be careful what you wish for!
1
Actually, that would be an extreme for Sac :) Average 91/92 in the summer.
I've been in my flat in Haight Ashbury for 33 years. I'm leaving at the end of the month, leaving SF and the Bay Area. Between the weather, the rent, other prices, the techies and the traffic, its time to get out. I'm being evicted, my flat will be turned into a condo and sold for a ridiculous amount. It's not a bad thing that I'm leaving. It's a good thing.
2
PLEASE stop this mis-conception of renting in San Francisco. Non payment of rent, causing a fire or other very serious danger to other tenants in the building, and owner move in (not a relative) are the only grounds for eviction. Even then it takes six months to evict a tenant. The majority of renters in San Francisco are paying rent one half to one third of market value. Landlords can only raise the rent 1.1% a year. In this situation tenants are not inspired to move. Moreover, many tenants are turning their units into Arbnb's, charging twice their monthly rent while the landlords watch helplessly. This makes for a shortage of rentals available and cause high prices when a unit is made available.
4
What you say is generally correct, however there are few more circumstances to consider. Any housing built after 1995, by state law, can not be subject to rent control. These owners can raise the rent as much as they'd like. That is a significant amount of housing not falling under rent control. Additionally, the only local cities that do have rent control are SF, Berkeley, Oakland and Palo Alto. This leaves a whole lot of housing stock not under rent control. I know many people whose rent goes up $150 - $400/ every year. That is unsustainable, esp if you are not in the tech industry. No one gets cost of living increases to accommodate that. I would argue rent control is not limiting access to housing. I think it's fair that landlords should be able to charge market rate after a tenant moves out, but that all housing should fall under the same rent control regulations in the entire Bay Area no matter when it was built in order to even the housing pricing.
3
When I moved into my apartment 10 years ago, it was at the landlord's asking price i.e. market value, and obviously we were both satisfied with that amount. Today my apartment could rent for 3x what I am paying, but my income is largely the same, and the building is exactly the same, only basic maintenance has been performed. I'm not making 3x the money and the apartment is not 3x nicer. It's great that they could get a higher price if the unit was available, but they don't "deserve" that rent. Thankfully my landlord has a lot of properties they've had in the family for generations, with plenty of storefront spaces that are not rent controlled, and they seem to be playing the long game of buy and hold. But who really knows. And while I love my place, I'd love to be able to get a 50% bigger apartment for 50% more rent, but those days are over.
I have lived in the city since 1995. What I see after the recession is that too many houses are owned by foreigners and rented out for high price to U.S citizen. The houses are mainly purchased as "investment." Why don't government place heavy tax on those investments coming from foreign countries? As long as wealthy international buyers keep purchasing houses in the silicon valley and raise the prices, this place will not be accessible to lower and middle class people.
19
This problem in SF will fix itself: the bubble will burst.
2
Anyone who is interested in the bay area housing crisis should take time to read "How Burrowing Owls Lead to Vomiting Anarchists": http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/
According to SF Curbed, only about 4200 units of housing were built in SF between 2010-2014. There's a lot more in the pipeline now, but the above article outlines they whys and hows its hard to build in SF proper (and the entire area in general). Neighborhood preservationists (notably, Mr. Peskin) have sought, time after time, to restrict building in their neighborhoods, and then decry sky-high rents and evictions. 15 years ago, the city was facing the same problems, but the dot-com crash and later the great recession gave some breathing room. Things eased up and once again, nothing was done.
Notably, SPUR (a non-profit urban planning group based in the bay area) has projected serious 30 year job growth for the area (their numbers have been born out in the past). Until (unless?) the good folks of the bay area decide to face the housing crisis head on, build more, build smart, and come up with a better integrated cross-county public transit system, sky-high housing costs and terrible traffic are going to to be what we get, even with a temporary respite from the end of the unicorns.
According to SF Curbed, only about 4200 units of housing were built in SF between 2010-2014. There's a lot more in the pipeline now, but the above article outlines they whys and hows its hard to build in SF proper (and the entire area in general). Neighborhood preservationists (notably, Mr. Peskin) have sought, time after time, to restrict building in their neighborhoods, and then decry sky-high rents and evictions. 15 years ago, the city was facing the same problems, but the dot-com crash and later the great recession gave some breathing room. Things eased up and once again, nothing was done.
Notably, SPUR (a non-profit urban planning group based in the bay area) has projected serious 30 year job growth for the area (their numbers have been born out in the past). Until (unless?) the good folks of the bay area decide to face the housing crisis head on, build more, build smart, and come up with a better integrated cross-county public transit system, sky-high housing costs and terrible traffic are going to to be what we get, even with a temporary respite from the end of the unicorns.
4
As a resident of SF as well as a tech worker and small business owner, I've watched with bemusement and ire at how the City by the Bay has governed itself into this latest set of economic nastiness over the past 5 years. One *could* blame the burgeoning Silicon Valley culture and its overflow of workers and companies, but to give credit where it’s due, it's SF’s city government created a vacuum in which these businesses were attracted to the City.
Before 2011, SF was not known to be business-friendly — just Google the history Chevron, who relocated their operations from San Francisco after fighting an oppressive city payroll tax.
The city government under Mayor Ed Lee is quite culpable for creating the current tech bubble in San Francisco, and especially the influx of tech companies in the past 5 years.
How so? Mr. Lee created a system of tax breaks in San Francisco in 2011 in response to a threat from the then-hot Twitter to move out of SF over the city payroll tax. Mayor Lee caved, creating a gerrymandered payroll-tax-free zone in a small area of SF, a tax break which also excludes stock options.
The net effect: Twitter’s tax breaks alone in 2014 cost San Francisco approximately $34 million in taxes alone. SF has seen millions of lost revenue that could be spent on social programs, infrastructure, public transportation, housing, etc.
So with all the hand-waving about how tech is ruining the economy, we in San Francisco need to look a little closer at our own leaders.
Before 2011, SF was not known to be business-friendly — just Google the history Chevron, who relocated their operations from San Francisco after fighting an oppressive city payroll tax.
The city government under Mayor Ed Lee is quite culpable for creating the current tech bubble in San Francisco, and especially the influx of tech companies in the past 5 years.
How so? Mr. Lee created a system of tax breaks in San Francisco in 2011 in response to a threat from the then-hot Twitter to move out of SF over the city payroll tax. Mayor Lee caved, creating a gerrymandered payroll-tax-free zone in a small area of SF, a tax break which also excludes stock options.
The net effect: Twitter’s tax breaks alone in 2014 cost San Francisco approximately $34 million in taxes alone. SF has seen millions of lost revenue that could be spent on social programs, infrastructure, public transportation, housing, etc.
So with all the hand-waving about how tech is ruining the economy, we in San Francisco need to look a little closer at our own leaders.
19
Or how about we take a look at ourselves? We elect our leaders.
1
Or let Twitter leave, then your precious Big Government gets nothing, along with all the store owners where Twitter employees shop
3
Except not all of voted for Ed Lee.
If you kill the zoning laws, you fix the problem. When people control how their neighborhoods are zoned, you cannot build the housing that is necessary to meet demand and you get the situation SF is in. The problem there is the desire to keep the city precious and not let it evolve into the major metropolitan area that it now is. Sorry if your view is obstructed or it becomes less quaint, but building high rise apartment buildings is the only way to allow the very people who define the quirky character of the city to continue living there.
1
SF seems ripe for violent revolution. How ironic that SF also has fostered some of the most radical thinking in the US. The radicals may get what they wish for and SF will be brought down. But, all suffer. How about rent control and any number of other measures that would allow working class people to live in the City? It is sad that the leaders of SF can not be creative enough in a most creative city, to dream up some real world solutions.
3
SF has the most stringent rent control in the country. It only allows a rent increase of 60% of inflation a year. It only applies to building built before 1979 but its not like the city allows owners to demolish anything. Some say rent control is the problem. The laws are so oppressive that many owners would rather just leave the unit vacant. You cay scoff at such a claim but unoccupied building sell for 20% to 30% more and in half the time on the market. 20% of $2m is $400k. You would have to rent for a long time to make that money back after taxes.
3
Rent control doesn't allow working class people to live in the city. It allows a those crafty enough to game the system to get a discount, meanwhile causing rents to go even higher for all the other working class people (and everyone else).
1
So Big Government can't repeal the laws of supply and demand? How about the laws of physics?
1
Only in California - the Land of Fruits and Nuts - would any significant portion of the population bemoan the success of the Tech Industry.
4
I live in one of the cheapest neighborhoods in SF, Visitacion Valley, where there are still houses available for less than a million dollars. Still, if it came to a choice between my house losing $100k of its grossly inflated price, and my kid not being able to afford to rent a place in the town where he was born and raised, I'd lose the cash without thinking about it.
7
San Francisco over the last 150 years or so after the Gold Rush, have had periods of "gentrification", in different parts of town. Now the whole town has it! I lived in SF, "The City", way back in 1981-89. It was comparatively cheaper, and it would get more expensive little by little every year. Not only is the SF Bay Area "off the charts" in unaffordability, SF is its "OZ".
"... a teacher at a high school for pregnant teenagers and young mothers."
If you have an entire school for unwed mothers you have bigger problems than high rents.
If you have an entire school for unwed mothers you have bigger problems than high rents.
15
It's no secret that people are rejecting suburban sprawl in favor of city living, and that's wonderful; but we need to recognize that their choices are extremely limited.
I have lived in the suburbs, but mostly in New York and in San Francisco, and have traveled widely in the States and in Europe, with a long stay in Paris. Why do people flock to cities like NY and SF?
Maybe it's because most other cities in the country are boring and ugly as sin, often dangerous, and have lousy public transportation. Take Yonkers, NY. It's potentially within easy striking distance of midtown NYC. It could have been beautiful and very livable. It has nice steep hills, many with with gorgeous views of the Hudson and the Palisades, it has buildings with history, and a population of almost 200,000. It is very compact. But it's ugly, ugly, ugly; it has no cultural institutions, and inadequate public transportation. It has no cultural excitement; rather it has the excitement of high crime.
Too many people are moving into SF, and we are beginning to pay the price here. But much of this could have been avoided if we knew how to create exciting, beautiful, convenient, and comfortable smaller cities, and were willing to do so.
I have lived in the suburbs, but mostly in New York and in San Francisco, and have traveled widely in the States and in Europe, with a long stay in Paris. Why do people flock to cities like NY and SF?
Maybe it's because most other cities in the country are boring and ugly as sin, often dangerous, and have lousy public transportation. Take Yonkers, NY. It's potentially within easy striking distance of midtown NYC. It could have been beautiful and very livable. It has nice steep hills, many with with gorgeous views of the Hudson and the Palisades, it has buildings with history, and a population of almost 200,000. It is very compact. But it's ugly, ugly, ugly; it has no cultural institutions, and inadequate public transportation. It has no cultural excitement; rather it has the excitement of high crime.
Too many people are moving into SF, and we are beginning to pay the price here. But much of this could have been avoided if we knew how to create exciting, beautiful, convenient, and comfortable smaller cities, and were willing to do so.
14
Interesting to see the real estate shills saying the problem is not enough housing being built. Plenty of new condo housing is being built along the Market Street corridor, but prices for a small unit are more than $1 million, all-cash preferred. This is not by any stretch "regular people" housing, or housing that will alleviate the housing crunch. And many of the condos stay dark after purchase, indicating non-local purchasers who don't even live in San Francisco.
30
This story is what could be called a 'false meme'. San Franciscans are EXTREMELY happy that our salaries and bonuses are increasing, our quality of life continues to rise, our property values are improving, our amenities are increasing, and our work and family life continues to get better. The number of whiners who complaining in nowhere near 0.1% of the population (even among renters and especially among the homeowners who make up the core of the population and the actual community. Most San Franciscans like that we have a creative, prosperous, liberal, and innovative economy and culture and we want any other these whiners to go away and move to Detroit or Fresno. Please tell the truth. Thank you.
3
You are undoubtedly one of the wealthy tech people this article is describing. If you were to ever associate with the folks who actually do real work, like teaching, policing, cooking, construction, etc., you would know that the housing crisis in SF is very real and it's hurting a large segment of the population.
6
But you're in Florida.
11
Hi, DB. We can all see that you're in Panama City, Florida.
9
So the straightforward problem that needs to be addressed here is managing growth. It would seem like a good problem to have, and there would seem to be feasible solutions, rather than hoping (albeit impotently) the source of the wealth dries up. Be careful what you wish for, that can get very ugly. And it's not the Tech millionaires who would suffer most. Journalists (always story junkies) would be there writing much sadder stories about some of these same people who want the thing to crater in this article.
Looking at some of these nasty comments, at thought arises. Once all the rich, snooty, conservative, forward looking, young, smart, hardworking, good-looking, white teeth, blemish free conservatives have taken over San Francisco, who will they have to look down their noses?
Or better yet, who will bearound toeducate their kids or clean their luxury apartments, since none of the liberal stupid democrats will be able to so, being unable to afford to live there.
Or looking down the road, who will be around to wipe their behinds when they're old? Certainly not their children (if they mansmanage totake a break from drinking lattes and find time to procreate), as they will have been taught that caring about others is some crazy liberal aberration.
Here's this for the, I got mine crowd, life is very, very short and can be quite cruel. Remember that. You might need a compassionate person in your future.
Or better yet, who will bearound toeducate their kids or clean their luxury apartments, since none of the liberal stupid democrats will be able to so, being unable to afford to live there.
Or looking down the road, who will be around to wipe their behinds when they're old? Certainly not their children (if they mansmanage totake a break from drinking lattes and find time to procreate), as they will have been taught that caring about others is some crazy liberal aberration.
Here's this for the, I got mine crowd, life is very, very short and can be quite cruel. Remember that. You might need a compassionate person in your future.
9
“But I think we need a moratorium on the things that benefit the few,” she said. “If only there were some way to prevent the haves from having it all.”
Thats well said. The cascade of services, institutions and perks that seem to just serve the well off is insane.
Thats well said. The cascade of services, institutions and perks that seem to just serve the well off is insane.
4
@inSF
The cascade of services, institutions and perks that serve the bums, the drunks, the addicts, and the insane is insane. SF spends about $240 MILLION dollars on the "homeless" and the problem just gets worse.
Where is this money going?
Why do the people that control the city's "homeless" budget still have jobs?
They have failed. Time for accountability.
Defund the Homeless Industrial Complex!
The cascade of services, institutions and perks that serve the bums, the drunks, the addicts, and the insane is insane. SF spends about $240 MILLION dollars on the "homeless" and the problem just gets worse.
Where is this money going?
Why do the people that control the city's "homeless" budget still have jobs?
They have failed. Time for accountability.
Defund the Homeless Industrial Complex!
3
San Francisco’s affordability problem is a classic example of supply and demand. The demand for housing in the city is booming, while there is a chronic shortage of new housing due to San Francisco’s notoriously restrictive zoning laws. The more restrictive the zoning laws, the more expensive the housing. We see the same situation play out (to a slightly lesser degree) here in Greater Boston. The NIMBYs who oppose new construction are the real problem.
3
This is a false argument, Roger. As you can see from the figure cited in the piece, SF has been adding 10,000 people per year. How do you add 10,000 units of housing year after year after year? Only by building Co-op City. But SF is earthquake country. High rises can only be built in a few places -- where bedrock is close to the surface.
It's not just "restrictive zoning." The city has bent over backwards to create exemptions -- and that's what's causing all the displacements. That, and the laws of physics.
It's not just "restrictive zoning." The city has bent over backwards to create exemptions -- and that's what's causing all the displacements. That, and the laws of physics.
2
I second this and add that the City is already building at an exponential rate as witnessed by all the cranes around. People already complain about the impact from the amount of construction. I'm not sure how much faster things could be realistically built.
To Justin Keller - take some of your money and DO SOMETHING about the homeless and unemployed. Like, create a startup to address the problem, rather than just complaining. There but for grace goes you.
6
The tech companies should contribute to creating a new public transportation infrastructure. The Bay Area's mass transit is an embarrassment--from my home in Oakland to anyplace away from the BART line in SF, I have to take two separate buses and a train. The time and hassle is not the problem; it's the fact that I have to pay 3 separate fares that total $8 each way. No wonder everyone drives!
10
While watching the tech workers board the Google bus this morning, it occurred to me that these people are some of the worlds best and brightest young people. They are smart, energetic, and creative. And they're hard to get because every company and every industry wants them. The tech companies need to offer them more than just money in order to attract them. In that regard, San Francisco is the ultimate amenity to a much sought after class of talent. I get that their presence is viewed as a mortal threat to the lives of thousands. But if these are the young minds that are building the future of our global economy, is it worth displacing thousands?
2
The cost of housing tops most people's concerns, but unfortunately San Francisco's go-to solution is to enhance rent control. This artificially lowers the rents for people who don't move, and artificially raises the rents for those who do. People therefore have a disincentive to move, reducing the amount of available housing for everyone else. The result is a two-tiered system, where some housing is too cheap and the rest is too expensive. Allowing all rents to fluctuate with the market would reduce the extremes and allow prices to reach a more sane equilibrium. You can't win a fight against the power of supply and demand, and the outcome here should not surprise us.
9
That's not true. Ending rent control would only raise the rent controlled units to the already outrageous prices of non rent controlled units as well as displace hundreds of thousands of people living under rent control that would then add even more demand to the market.
5
Rent control only applies to buildings built before 1979. There is also no vacancy control, meaning landlords can rent vacant apartments at whatever monthly rent they can get.
I live in a building with 12 units. 3 units have long time tenants, and 2 more are medium length. At least 2 become vacant every year. The landlord seems to be doing OK and has not complained about things ...
I live in a building with 12 units. 3 units have long time tenants, and 2 more are medium length. At least 2 become vacant every year. The landlord seems to be doing OK and has not complained about things ...
2
E-Corp (Mr. Robot) at work. Tech, banks and Wall Street have subverted Main Street.
2
I'm surprised no one mentions the public subsidies tech companies receive. Economic success is not frictionless. It is built on tax maintained infrastructure. At least part of the problem is that tech is too busy believing it is inventing a future whole cloth without dealing with the interdependent world in which it has pitched a tent. It's a young attitude, just as hippies thought they could remake the world. Only tech adult-lings have money, which brings a different kind of self-righteousness that can price those who disagree out of their cozy paradigm. No wonder people throw rocks at the Google bus.
28
Which subsidies are these? Do tell.
SF charges an insane additional payroll tax to businesses operating in the city, which other nearby cities do not charge. Twitter negotiated it away for 25 years because its BATNA was to move 10 minutes South. SF decided that the incremental revenue was better than nothing.
The tech shuttle buses pay about $3.7m to use bus stops and streets that are funded, in part, by taxes the businesses and their employees pay.
SF charges an insane additional payroll tax to businesses operating in the city, which other nearby cities do not charge. Twitter negotiated it away for 25 years because its BATNA was to move 10 minutes South. SF decided that the incremental revenue was better than nothing.
The tech shuttle buses pay about $3.7m to use bus stops and streets that are funded, in part, by taxes the businesses and their employees pay.
I was born here, my father was born here and my French grandmother came here in the early 1900's. When I was growing up, my city, San Francisco, was absolutely beautiful. I remember going downtown where everyone dressed nicely and the highest building that one could see venturing into San Francisco was Coit Tower. I remember being free, not afraid of anything as a child, roller skating down the street, not having our parents worry about us. I was a wonderful city. Now, because of our current Mayor,
Ed Lee, my city is an now an amalgam of towering high rises. at least 6.000 street people and a myriad of problems and our Board of Supervisors seem to have no answer.
Ed Lee, my city is an now an amalgam of towering high rises. at least 6.000 street people and a myriad of problems and our Board of Supervisors seem to have no answer.
7
Yeah, that's the San Francisco I knew as as child. I was born in St Mary's hospital and lived one block down from Golden Gate Park. Played there all the time and in Rossi park which was around the corner from me.
I remember the fog rolling in all the way to Second Avenue, playing barefoot on the clean streets, walking the six blocks to Frank McCoppin elementary school. I also remember the roller rink and the amusement park on the beach from the Cliff House. There was a mechanical laughing fat lady in the window at the amusement park and the beautiful floral displays in front of the greenhouse in Golden Gate.
People don't realize there is a place for progress but aesthetics as well. Don't turn every city into a big, dirty, noisy crowded, overpriced, crime-ridden NYC.
Moved to NYC as a child from San Francisco and was traumatized by the experience. There is such a thing as life quality and work/life balance.
Being rich is not everything.
I remember the fog rolling in all the way to Second Avenue, playing barefoot on the clean streets, walking the six blocks to Frank McCoppin elementary school. I also remember the roller rink and the amusement park on the beach from the Cliff House. There was a mechanical laughing fat lady in the window at the amusement park and the beautiful floral displays in front of the greenhouse in Golden Gate.
People don't realize there is a place for progress but aesthetics as well. Don't turn every city into a big, dirty, noisy crowded, overpriced, crime-ridden NYC.
Moved to NYC as a child from San Francisco and was traumatized by the experience. There is such a thing as life quality and work/life balance.
Being rich is not everything.
4
It is as if we really are living in a William Gibson novel.
I dont think blaming tech is a good place to start, how about talking about 30 years of head in the sand development policy? Big business is the devil...unless big business is the answer. I dont know if you can have it both ways. Maybe?
I know it is not exactly the same, but in my town, parking is the issue, so ordinances were passed that there had to be X number of parking spots per units in new buildings. It helped. If people in SF are so "innovative" where are all the ideas on solving this?
I dont think blaming tech is a good place to start, how about talking about 30 years of head in the sand development policy? Big business is the devil...unless big business is the answer. I dont know if you can have it both ways. Maybe?
I know it is not exactly the same, but in my town, parking is the issue, so ordinances were passed that there had to be X number of parking spots per units in new buildings. It helped. If people in SF are so "innovative" where are all the ideas on solving this?
2
Housing prices rise as you get closer and closer to Mountain View...home of Google.
QED
QED
2
I lived in the bay area in the Oakland hills in the early 90s for three and half years, before moving to Texas for graduate school. I've remained in Texas, but get my dose of San Francisco and its surrounding area at least once a year during holiday visits to see family and friends.
I always point to San Francisco as one of several iconic cities in the U.S. And though the tech industry has created many high paying jobs which feed the economy in other ways, you've got to wonder if those special qualities that have made the city so iconic will soon be nonexistent. It's like sitting in a room and everyone looks and thinks just like you. How interesting or creative can that be? You might as well be sitting in the middle of Iowa!
I always point to San Francisco as one of several iconic cities in the U.S. And though the tech industry has created many high paying jobs which feed the economy in other ways, you've got to wonder if those special qualities that have made the city so iconic will soon be nonexistent. It's like sitting in a room and everyone looks and thinks just like you. How interesting or creative can that be? You might as well be sitting in the middle of Iowa!
Same thing is happening in NYC. Generic glass towers are popping up everywhere. It's turning into Dubai.
1
I cry for San Francisco. Once lived there, early 90s, loved it then. You have to also understand that this tiny city is land locked. Yet the city government, after all these years, has not figured out how to deal with a rising population, demographic shifts and socioeconomic challenges. Even I had to move way back then to the East Bay (Downtown Oakland) and commute to work, which was next to the fantastic Transamerica Pyramid. I love SF and always will, it's a beauty for America. I hope that they can find a way to get a hold of rising housing costs. Don't know the solution, but my hometown Seattle is experiencing the same thing.
3
I work in tech and am from London, having moved here to be a part of the future of tech so indeed a part of the 'problem'. London similarly is a victim of its own success and people have to move farther and farther out to afford to work and live.
There are some benefits, with areas being regenerated but re-investment, new homes and a model for sustainable city growth sorely needed.
That being said, SF is not alone, this is a global city success issue.
There are some benefits, with areas being regenerated but re-investment, new homes and a model for sustainable city growth sorely needed.
That being said, SF is not alone, this is a global city success issue.
4
While many advocate for more housing, my sentiment is that there should be fewer people. Why is it that San Francisco should try to accommodate everyone or every company that wants to come here? The tech industry has been an invasion on San Francisco. Ed Lee gives away real estate deals to Twitter while the homeless population explodes. The city government seems to be caught up in the greed of more more more. There seems to be no concern for maintaining any kind of sustainable city. It is at a breaking point. The next high-rises should be built in Mountain View or San Jose. San Francisco was better off with out the tech "boom."
8
A lot of tech companies are already in South Bay and Peninsula. People in those companies like Google still prefer to live in SF though, just leading to more traffic in commute time. US is a free country so it's really hard to really tell people not to move in.
I totally agree it's better to make other local cities more desirable to live in so people of all income levels will spread out more and have more vibrant local communities instead of jamming into SF, but that's a longer term thing to fix. You can't just say "don't move to SF", unless... you really want this to be how other people look at San Franciscans: an unwelcoming bunch that don't want anyone to move in.
I agree sustainability is important, but bottom line is, sometimes you don't get to choose how other people work, live, and think. You just have to provide the right incentives for them to. Not trying to side with the SF city council though. Not sure if they have been doing the right things to address this either.
I totally agree it's better to make other local cities more desirable to live in so people of all income levels will spread out more and have more vibrant local communities instead of jamming into SF, but that's a longer term thing to fix. You can't just say "don't move to SF", unless... you really want this to be how other people look at San Franciscans: an unwelcoming bunch that don't want anyone to move in.
I agree sustainability is important, but bottom line is, sometimes you don't get to choose how other people work, live, and think. You just have to provide the right incentives for them to. Not trying to side with the SF city council though. Not sure if they have been doing the right things to address this either.
I moved to San Francisco when it was still cool, back in 1999. I left the Bay Area last year, for good. It's ruined. The things that spell San Francisco have changed.
If you like tech bros, clueless yuppies, people glued to their phones and rent you can't afford unless you're wealthy, by all means, move to San Francisco.
The artists and activists who used to make the city great have all moved, most to the Pacific Northwest. San Francisco is dead.
If you like tech bros, clueless yuppies, people glued to their phones and rent you can't afford unless you're wealthy, by all means, move to San Francisco.
The artists and activists who used to make the city great have all moved, most to the Pacific Northwest. San Francisco is dead.
7
Do what we did...moved our businesses to the Hudson Valley in NY. Everything is cheaper, people are nicer and it is a beautiful place. The art and music scene is terrific with the many colleges in the area. The food scene is certainly not up to Bay Area standards but then the California foodie scene is absurdly over the top. We are not surrounded by arrogant hipsters who profess their individualism by all looking alike. Best of all the greatest city in the U.S. is a short, comfortable train ride away.
4
That's kinda the problem is people only seem to care about how good the food scene is our where's the best shopping and all of that superficial stuff. Not saying that we should stop enjoying our lives but theven consumer stuff should be a lower priority but it's not.
1
It is very telling that Mayor Ed Lee would not comment for this story. His cozy relationships with venture capitalists like Ron Conway and real estate developers are a big reason we are where we are today. Someday the obvious corruption will see the light of day. In the meantime, I hope national reporters will continue to shine the spotlight on Lee and his cronies despite their attempts to scurry into the shadows.
37
This is the kind of article that brings out every fan of rent control to complain about income inequality, etc. I think the problem will fix itself. Many of the companies in Silicon valley find it impossible to relocate talent there. Phoenix, anyone?
When we relocated to the Bay Area a few years ago I was really worried about how we would afford housing given all I had heard. I soon realized that there are plenty of nice and reasonably affordable places in the general area, albeit not in the city itself, which is rather small. We might have barely managed to afford some cramped place in San Francisco if we were lucky house hunting, but we decided on a suburb when we realized how much more space there is and how lovely the natural surroundings are. I like going into the city but it is cramped and crowded. For living, there are plenty of other options nearby that make working in San Francisco easy to do.
1
The only solution is the free market. Remove Big Government rent controls and you'll see housing built at a fantastic pace. Increased supply brings lower prices. Never fails!
3
Amen brother.
1
Again, rent control applies only to units built before 1980. I don't say this to get through to you as much as to correct the misinformation that you're spreading to others.
1
Worst run city in country. Seattle is a close second.
3
You realize San Francisco is unquestionably the best-run City in the country, right? Yes, we need to abolish rent control and other anti-homeowner laws, but overall we have by far the highest quality of life of any American city.
Instead of rants about liberals, we can look at people's attitudes the same as our borders. Now that we're here, we want to close them. Or small towns, unless you were born there, you'll never be welcome. Or navatists, this land is mine and meant only for people like me, so get out.
You don't have to be a liberal to want to maintain your way of life. Isn't that what conservatives want? To maintain a certain lifestyle before the them showed up? It's not against business. It's about disruption of your lifestyle and why should I have to move because you came here after me?
Frankly, when I went back there to live 30 years ago, I was one of the few natives living there. San Francisco is unique just like a quaint town or an historic village and if I was there first, then you should get out, not me. If I wanted to live in a New York, I'd live there. Conservatives are the first ones to tell the other to get out.
San Francisco is not that big. The infrastructure cannot handle New York type structures or traffic. Anybody ever been in an earthquake, enjoyed an unobstructed view of the city, played in Golden Gate Park, or enjoyed a trollycar ride? I have. Unless someone lives or lived there, they are not qualified to speak.
You don't have to be a liberal to want to maintain your way of life. Isn't that what conservatives want? To maintain a certain lifestyle before the them showed up? It's not against business. It's about disruption of your lifestyle and why should I have to move because you came here after me?
Frankly, when I went back there to live 30 years ago, I was one of the few natives living there. San Francisco is unique just like a quaint town or an historic village and if I was there first, then you should get out, not me. If I wanted to live in a New York, I'd live there. Conservatives are the first ones to tell the other to get out.
San Francisco is not that big. The infrastructure cannot handle New York type structures or traffic. Anybody ever been in an earthquake, enjoyed an unobstructed view of the city, played in Golden Gate Park, or enjoyed a trollycar ride? I have. Unless someone lives or lived there, they are not qualified to speak.
3
The problem of affordable housing goes way beyond the "dot coms." It is felt in every major city in the U.S. The wealthy, who used to live in select suburbs, woke up and decided that having to drive to the best museums, clubs, restaurants, etc. was annoying. So they started relocating to the city proper, pushing out anyone not pulling down a high salary. It was the case in my hometown, NYC, when I left; and now I'm watching it accelerate here in Atlanta. Here investment groups that used to buy and sell and play casino with mortgage bundles are now snapping up old houses anywhere inside the perimeter for a song, renovating them, and renting them out for ridiculously high rates. With stagnant lower and middle class wages, no one can afford an apartment in a decent commuting distance from the city. Something needs to give.
6
Dear San Francisco. We feel your pain. Love, New York City.
4
Exactly. Just substitute financial services for tech and it's the same story.
1
The Bay Area has an illusion about this problem that New York doesn't have. The simple fact is that there is no profit (which means, unfortunately, that there is instead $ loss) in building and maintaining rental housing at rates normal people can afford. It's partly because the normals are outcompeted for space by richies from all over the world, and partly because the prices of the infrastructure and utilities that go into housing people are out of communal control. There is no answer in our society as currently constituted and it's not gonna get better.
New Yorkers can growl at Wall Street while SFers growl at tech companies; if they cared to examine the budgets of their respective local governments, they would see there would be no cities left to live in there except for those industries.
New Yorkers can growl at Wall Street while SFers growl at tech companies; if they cared to examine the budgets of their respective local governments, they would see there would be no cities left to live in there except for those industries.
Instead of rants about liberals, we can look at people's attitudes the same as our borders. Now that we're here, we want to close them. Or small towns, where unless you were born there, you'll never be welcome. Or navatists, this land is mine and meant only for me and people like me, so get out. Instead of telling people they need to move to Nebraska if they don't like it.
I think this article doesn't explain the attitudes very well. You don't have to be a liberal to want to maintain your way of life. Isn't that what conservatives want? To maintain a certain lifestyle before the them showed up? It's not against business. It's about disruption of your lifestyle and why should I have to move because you came here after me?
Frankly, when I went back there to live 30 years ago, I was one of the few natives living there. San Francisco is unique just like a quaint town or an historic village and if I was there first, then you should get out, not me. If I wanted to live in a New York, I'd live there. Conservatives are the first ones to tell the other to get out.
San Francisco is not that big. The infrastructure cannot handle New York type structures or traffic. Anybody ever been in an earthquake, enjoyed an unobstructed view of the city, played in Golden Gate Park, or enjoyed a trollycar ride? I have. Unless someone lives or lived there, they are not qualified to speak.
I think this article doesn't explain the attitudes very well. You don't have to be a liberal to want to maintain your way of life. Isn't that what conservatives want? To maintain a certain lifestyle before the them showed up? It's not against business. It's about disruption of your lifestyle and why should I have to move because you came here after me?
Frankly, when I went back there to live 30 years ago, I was one of the few natives living there. San Francisco is unique just like a quaint town or an historic village and if I was there first, then you should get out, not me. If I wanted to live in a New York, I'd live there. Conservatives are the first ones to tell the other to get out.
San Francisco is not that big. The infrastructure cannot handle New York type structures or traffic. Anybody ever been in an earthquake, enjoyed an unobstructed view of the city, played in Golden Gate Park, or enjoyed a trollycar ride? I have. Unless someone lives or lived there, they are not qualified to speak.
5
So, not only are natives the only ones entitled to live in a place, but also the only ones free to talk about it? Really?
3
Most zip codes in these United States, and almost anyplace else on this earth, will simply love to have these problems and predicaments.
Some perspective and balance is called for here.
Tech is as much a reality as SF's strictures on new construction.
And please don't mix up the homeless problem with Tech. I am sure NYT readers are smart enough to deal with both as separate items, with minimal overlap.
Some perspective and balance is called for here.
Tech is as much a reality as SF's strictures on new construction.
And please don't mix up the homeless problem with Tech. I am sure NYT readers are smart enough to deal with both as separate items, with minimal overlap.
6
Honestly, I used to live in SF years ago, and public transportation there is so good, it is really no hardship at all to live in one of the neighboring cities. In fact you will get a better apartment and a bigger one if you live outside the city. There are few benefits to living within the city of San Francisco: you can hop on the subway from Oakland or Berkeley etc. and be in the city in 20 minutes or less. As for the "tech industry" - pretty much all American cities are changing to reflect the greed of our political and economic systems, it's not just SF. You know what the remedy for that is, and it's political. The 1% are ruining the entire country, not just SF.
5
It's really a regional housing crisis that extends beyond SF. Rents in not just surrounding cities but really all cities in the Bay Area--even those that might be considered exurbs-- have risen precipitously too, even in undesirable crime-ridden locations. So, you see, saying, "Oh, I can't live in SF, but I can afford a bigger, less expensive apartment in Oakland," doesn't apply anymore.
3
In reply to Shelly:
I live in the East Bay and avoid BART'ing to SF at all costs -- the trains no longer run enough cars to carry all the passengers that need a ride. People shove each other to get in the cars, though not as bad as in NYC (where I used to live). 20 minutes? That was the case maybe 15 or 20 yrs ago. Now, it's much longer than that. Lots of congestion in the one (why only one? what were they thinking?!) transbay BART tube. Lots of 'police activities' that stall the train at or between stations. Recently they discovered an electrical problem in the tube that required a reduction in the number of cars per train. And the number of commuters keeps increasing. It's not a 20-minute commute anymore.
I live in the East Bay and avoid BART'ing to SF at all costs -- the trains no longer run enough cars to carry all the passengers that need a ride. People shove each other to get in the cars, though not as bad as in NYC (where I used to live). 20 minutes? That was the case maybe 15 or 20 yrs ago. Now, it's much longer than that. Lots of congestion in the one (why only one? what were they thinking?!) transbay BART tube. Lots of 'police activities' that stall the train at or between stations. Recently they discovered an electrical problem in the tube that required a reduction in the number of cars per train. And the number of commuters keeps increasing. It's not a 20-minute commute anymore.
The Federal Reserve, by keeping interest rates too low for too long has created another housing bubble. San Fran may be the most extreme level, but other cities such as Denver have also seen housing prices rising at a crazy fast clip.
As before, it will not end well.
As before, it will not end well.
3
I understand the issue is broader than any one person, but I am astonished at Justin Keller's letter. It horrifies me, deeply. Its inhumanity is astounding.
If the likes of Mr. Keller want to diminish unsettling things in their sightlines, perhaps they could actually be CITIZENS of the area they inhabit, and find ways to manage resources for all to minimize pain and suffering, instead of just sucking all of the marrow from a city's life force, whining because the vending machine of life didn't disperse the desired artisan, free-range experience that they mistakenly think is owed to them simply because they exist.
We are undoubtedly talking about a big city issue here, of course. But this is also the clapback from many years of our national immersion in suburbia, where civic duty is unheard of, where it's always me me me at the expense of greater good, where we can come and go in our homes without ever seeing or speaking to our neighbors. The children and grandchildren of those people - and their privilege - are living in places like SF and other big cities across the country.
I don't wish anyone ill will, or the loss of their home, company or job, but there has to be some call to reason. It can't be sustainable. And while the weather may seem like paradise, the toxicity of what SF is becoming will undoubtedly be a weight on its future success.
If the likes of Mr. Keller want to diminish unsettling things in their sightlines, perhaps they could actually be CITIZENS of the area they inhabit, and find ways to manage resources for all to minimize pain and suffering, instead of just sucking all of the marrow from a city's life force, whining because the vending machine of life didn't disperse the desired artisan, free-range experience that they mistakenly think is owed to them simply because they exist.
We are undoubtedly talking about a big city issue here, of course. But this is also the clapback from many years of our national immersion in suburbia, where civic duty is unheard of, where it's always me me me at the expense of greater good, where we can come and go in our homes without ever seeing or speaking to our neighbors. The children and grandchildren of those people - and their privilege - are living in places like SF and other big cities across the country.
I don't wish anyone ill will, or the loss of their home, company or job, but there has to be some call to reason. It can't be sustainable. And while the weather may seem like paradise, the toxicity of what SF is becoming will undoubtedly be a weight on its future success.
7
My experience with San Francisco dates back to pre-Bay Bridge days and the old ferries that traveled between the East Bay to the Ferry Building. Later, I could drive from Berkeley to downtown SF and find a parking place without undue difficulty. What I currently hear regarding the city is nostalgically depressing. "Progress" does not always lead to the better life.
Maybe instead of rants about liberals, we can look at people's attitudes like how some feel about our borders. Now that we're here, we want to close them. Or small towns, where unless you were born there, you'll never be welcome. Or navatists, this land is mine and meant only for me and people like me, so get out. Instead of telling people they need to move to Nebraska if they don't like it.
I think this article doesn't explain the attitudes very well. You don't have to be a liberal to want to maintain your way of life. Isn't that what conservatives want? To maintain a certain lifestyle before the them showed up? It's not against business. It's about disruption of your lifestyle and why should I have to move because you came here after me?
Frankly, when I went back there to live 30 years ago, I was one of the few natives living there. San Francisco is unique just like a quaint town or an historic village and if I was there first, then you should get out, not me. If I wanted to live in a New York, I'd live there. Conservatives are the first ones to tell the other to get out.
San Francisco is not that big. The infrastructure cannot handle New York type structures or traffic. Anybody ever been in an earthquake, enjoyed an unobstructed view of the city, played in Golden Gate Park, or enjoyed a trollycar ride? I have. Unless someone lives or lived there, they are not qualified to speak.
I think this article doesn't explain the attitudes very well. You don't have to be a liberal to want to maintain your way of life. Isn't that what conservatives want? To maintain a certain lifestyle before the them showed up? It's not against business. It's about disruption of your lifestyle and why should I have to move because you came here after me?
Frankly, when I went back there to live 30 years ago, I was one of the few natives living there. San Francisco is unique just like a quaint town or an historic village and if I was there first, then you should get out, not me. If I wanted to live in a New York, I'd live there. Conservatives are the first ones to tell the other to get out.
San Francisco is not that big. The infrastructure cannot handle New York type structures or traffic. Anybody ever been in an earthquake, enjoyed an unobstructed view of the city, played in Golden Gate Park, or enjoyed a trollycar ride? I have. Unless someone lives or lived there, they are not qualified to speak.
Americans sure can be dumb. Is this a surprise to any sentient being who's read a newspaper since 1980? We Americans love convoluted, complicated, wasteful answers to our problems (see 401(k)s, "flexible" spending accounts, etc.)
Hint: Build TALL, plain buildings with no Yuppie or Nouveau Riche amenities such as ample parking, granite counters, Sub-Zero appliances, etc. within walking distance of subway and light rail lines. Problem solved. Geez!
Hint: Build TALL, plain buildings with no Yuppie or Nouveau Riche amenities such as ample parking, granite counters, Sub-Zero appliances, etc. within walking distance of subway and light rail lines. Problem solved. Geez!
2
I have no problem neither living in nor visiting San Francisco today. The SF of "Tales of the City" is long gone. A city is made or broken by its residents, and many if not most of the people who live there now are not people I would want to know even casually.
1
And we feel the same about Orange County.
2
Who is "we"? Typical SF provincialism!
The history of displacement in San Francisco is fraught. At one point San Francisco was run by the Irish Catholics, this changed with outsiders looking for a welcoming place. It seems then San Francisco was an economically progressive and socially tolerant place (not socially progressive). Then with shifts and more conservative old guard feeling squeezed, terrible conflict happened; the SLA, Dan White, and so on. Social and economic progressive voices became strongest through Mascone, Milk, and others (and of course they were murdered as a cost). The thing that is interesting is that it seems like this shift is toward conservative values; economic, social,etc. With progressive's reeling and playing out as what conservatives do in the rest of the country by fighting to maintain the good ole days (although the technology sector seems to dine on the social progressive fruit while killing the trees). It's a difficult conflict that is removing the mostly welcoming attitude (as outsiders will extend) that existed for some time. It's starting the make San Francisco "hard" again as in the past (except the people living in San Francisco don't have the high density living training that predominates NYC making it actually more difficult the day to day). This time people are coming from privilege not exile and the cityscape is reacting by catering to it. There are no open arms between people in privilege only fierce competition and this is starting to challenge the cities identity. Sad
2
It amazes me how many people think or at least hope that you can repeal the laws of supply and demand. In SF just like NYC you have rent control which as most economists will tell you only make the problem worse. No one has a inherent right to live in a particular place unless they can afford it. Even people who believe housing is a fundamental right don't think everyone can live in Beverly Hills.
10
Rent control only applies to buildings built before 1979 (i.e., 37 years ago), so while it makes a nice scapegoat, it really isn't as big a part of the picture as many people like to make it.
7
San Francisco does not have rent control and there is little or none of it left in NYC either. Both places have rent stabilization, and when a tenant moves out the rent can go to whatever the market can bear. While a tenant is living there the rent is allowed to increase with inflation and costs. In both places rent stabilization does not even apply to smaller or newer buildings.
With enough rent disparity and new owners, often over and over, the pressure mounts and the owner will find some way to evict the rent stabilized tenant by moving in that unit or taking the building off the rental market long enough to get rid of the stabilized tenant and sell the building or any number of other ruses. No tenant in San Francisco is safe from eviction with rents doubling every few years, and if evicted many must quit their job and find one somewhere else.
With enough rent disparity and new owners, often over and over, the pressure mounts and the owner will find some way to evict the rent stabilized tenant by moving in that unit or taking the building off the rental market long enough to get rid of the stabilized tenant and sell the building or any number of other ruses. No tenant in San Francisco is safe from eviction with rents doubling every few years, and if evicted many must quit their job and find one somewhere else.
1
The San Francisco I moved to ten years ago is a wholly unfamiliar place today. The artistic, flamboyant counter-culture that first drew me here as a college graduate hardly exists. Walking through the Mission, I see hoards of young, wealthy tech workers who are embarrassingly heterogeneous in their lack of social justice and their desire to spend money. Many of my oldest friends have left the city due to economic hardships. I work in education and when speaking with those in tech, I sense feelings of pity and shame for my low-paying job. This baffles me. Tech workers, as far as I can tell, have dedicated their lives brainwashed into believing a single product/app is going to revolutionize the world. Forget human relationships. The humanity is slipping in this city because of this kind of mindset.
16
What is happening in San Francisco is a disgrace, and very sad. SF was once an astonishingly beautiful place, and a wonderful place to live and visit. My brother has lived in SF, and Oakland, for over 30 years but he is making to plans to leave CA because of high rent and all of the other issues. I would like to know how the city's taxes are being spent and why the tech companies are not doing more to help; something has to change.
4
Failures have always envied the super-successful. It's why the Democrat Party has such a sizable following - and why that party is so dangerous to the American dream.
Ironic, isn't it? Their ancestors came here for opportunity. All their (liberal, Democrat) descendants can see is failure and envy.
Ironic, isn't it? Their ancestors came here for opportunity. All their (liberal, Democrat) descendants can see is failure and envy.
5
Why do you not know how to use an adjective? It's democratic party. I know George Bush popularized "democrat" party, but he is hardly one to emulate for grammar.
4
Oh, you're right Spencer. Let's call it the "Socialist Party" instead...
2
Socialist Party would be more accurate
Sooner or later the coddled ones in the stylish playpens who it seems, have a carefully crafted distained for all those plain people they are forced to look at on their way to "work", will find their playpens outsourced to India. I am sure their parents will take them back.
4
Why not act like Chevron did? Moved all the E&P and office workers to Houston, a city with a lower living standard, and only keep the headquarter personnel in SF? Or better yet, move all the tech people to Austin, a better place. If one doesn't like to move, he or she can quit and find another job. I am sure Texan or Texas educated people are equally smart or wiser.
2
One thing missing from this entire discussion is San Francisco's unique geography, being completely surrounded by water and the lack of ability to "spread out." With a population of 837,000 we have a population density of 17,000 people per square mile. Nearby San Jose, with only a slightly larger population, has a density of 5,400 people per square mile.
San Franciso's water views, hills, and uniqueness make it very special, but this tightness is part of the problem. And the build-more-housing solution would only contribute to some of the difficulties mentioned here, traffic for example.
Don't know what the solution is, but do know that I recently tried to drive to Berkeley, turned around after half an hour because I hadn't gotten half a mile from home.
And BART isn't safe for a night time event either.
bikiniwaxchronicles.com
San Franciso's water views, hills, and uniqueness make it very special, but this tightness is part of the problem. And the build-more-housing solution would only contribute to some of the difficulties mentioned here, traffic for example.
Don't know what the solution is, but do know that I recently tried to drive to Berkeley, turned around after half an hour because I hadn't gotten half a mile from home.
And BART isn't safe for a night time event either.
bikiniwaxchronicles.com
17
You mentioned BART. Wouldn't the solution is to fix up BART and other public transit options like MUNI so people will feel more comfortable using them? I understand these problems are hard to solve but they are doable. The thing is we can't control where people want to live, and since people want to live in SF feels like we just have to deal with it and come up with concrete solutions.
I understand it may affect the look of the city a little bit, but there are pros and cons to everything. Sure we can keep the look of the city, but I think we will then just accept the consequences of insanely high housing price due to imbalanced housing demand.
I understand it may affect the look of the city a little bit, but there are pros and cons to everything. Sure we can keep the look of the city, but I think we will then just accept the consequences of insanely high housing price due to imbalanced housing demand.
2
"Cities do not usually cheer the downfall or even the diminishment of the hometown industry, but the relationship between San Francisco and the tech community has grown increasingly tense."
-----------
Tech is NOT San Francisco's "hometown industry."
SF has long been a financial and industry center, in addition to having a thriving arts and environmental community. Tech's home has always been Silicon Valley, 45 miles south. The recent influx of companies and workers into SF has turned those companies more into invaders, but still, it is only a recent phenomenon that there have been so many.
Regardless, no one here sees tech as being the hometown industry, except those tech titans and workers who now work or live here. Unfortunately, the NY Times bureau here seems to have bought into the hype as well.
There's still a lot more than tech going on here business-wise, but the super-inflated finances of the tech industry have given it a prominence far beyond that which it deserves. And the impacts on ordinary people and their lives are likewise extremely out of proportion.
-----------
Tech is NOT San Francisco's "hometown industry."
SF has long been a financial and industry center, in addition to having a thriving arts and environmental community. Tech's home has always been Silicon Valley, 45 miles south. The recent influx of companies and workers into SF has turned those companies more into invaders, but still, it is only a recent phenomenon that there have been so many.
Regardless, no one here sees tech as being the hometown industry, except those tech titans and workers who now work or live here. Unfortunately, the NY Times bureau here seems to have bought into the hype as well.
There's still a lot more than tech going on here business-wise, but the super-inflated finances of the tech industry have given it a prominence far beyond that which it deserves. And the impacts on ordinary people and their lives are likewise extremely out of proportion.
1
Nicely said.
AND this is one of the worst side effects of Ed Lee's corporate governance: cultural cross-pollution. San Francisco has always had a strong and unique culture which attracts certain types of people, and repels others. While plenty of tech employees have lived in the city and commuted out, Silicon Valley's own very different culture was largely contained down south, where it was centered. The average San Franciscan didn't have to deal with it. But now Silicon Valley culture is IN the city, taking over like a rapacious weed. And these days it's a particularly icky, self-referential, entitled, and bumptious culture. And the majority of non-tech people in SF are not liking this development at all.
AND this is one of the worst side effects of Ed Lee's corporate governance: cultural cross-pollution. San Francisco has always had a strong and unique culture which attracts certain types of people, and repels others. While plenty of tech employees have lived in the city and commuted out, Silicon Valley's own very different culture was largely contained down south, where it was centered. The average San Franciscan didn't have to deal with it. But now Silicon Valley culture is IN the city, taking over like a rapacious weed. And these days it's a particularly icky, self-referential, entitled, and bumptious culture. And the majority of non-tech people in SF are not liking this development at all.
2
It isn't just the City of SF that is feeling the pain. The situation is similar in San Mateo County, situated between Silicon Valley and SF. Land prices are through the roof, encouraging land owners to sell to greedy developers. Recreational opportunities for kids are dwindling, despite the exploding population. My son loves to play ice hockey but this is next to impossible. Two nearby rinks have closed in the past three years, despite being profitable. One rink owner sold out to a condo developer. The other rink owner locked the doors and is now blackmailing the City of San Mateo to change the zoning from recreational to retail so that they can install another big box store. Even if you can afford it, it is a terrible place to raise a family.
5
Hockey should be played in locations where ice naturally can form outdoors. The Bay Area isn't it. Take up bike racing - you can do it year round.
1
I live in San Mateo county and we have housing affordability issues but there are no lack of free or low-cost recreational opportunities. The ocean is only 25 minutes away, you're right next to a bay, and there are free parks and trails galore. Why are you staying inside when the weather is usually fab outside? So get out there, try a different sport, instead of sticking to one type.
This picture that accompanies the article is of Duboce Park. I lived around the corner from that, a white male on the edge of the black part of town (that was all I could afford int he 70s). When I left San Francisco 9 years ago, from the Haight Street bus, I saw white chicks with zebra and leopard print purses coming out of apartments there on the lower Haight from Pierce St where low-income African Americans used to live. A jungle now for sure! These dot commers who live in these areas now wouldn't have the nerve to live there when I did. I can no longer listen to the Jeannete McDonald/Nelson Eddie song San Francisco or Judy Garland or Tony Bennett I Left My Heart in San Francisco whithout it sounding like a Spike Lee tune.
2
Well, you are now where you properly belong, I guess. And SF is all the better for it.
You sound like you have one or two issues. Ok. City is probably vanilla enough for you.
I live in San Francisco. It is true that the city has deteriorated; it is filthy, run down, and taken over by homeless people who consider urinating in the streets their right. I have tried to find out how the city can spend $8.6 billions and still have awful schools, dirty streets and abysmal public transportation; but, I am sure a lot of the "progressive programs are fully funded!
The city needs more housing but it puts so many restrictions on potential developments that few actually get done; including having "affordable housing" just about everywhere.
Nothing is going to change until the progressive Board of Supervisors understands that, in order to have a successful city, you cannot be blatantly antibusiness.
The city needs more housing but it puts so many restrictions on potential developments that few actually get done; including having "affordable housing" just about everywhere.
Nothing is going to change until the progressive Board of Supervisors understands that, in order to have a successful city, you cannot be blatantly antibusiness.
24
Consider that no one making less than the tech children can afford to live there and so things like say..teaching.
1
San Francisco, Manhattan. Key West, Boston. Maybe these cities should simply be designated as simply places for the very-well-off. Others can go to other very nice places, such as Bismark, Moline, Sioux Falls, Cincinnati. Perhaps it's time to stop trying to make them affordable, as it has been tried without success so far.
6
All I can say is that I am so happy I moved out of the Bay Area to Arizona!!!
1
It's not just San Francisco, and it's not just the Tech industry. The entire PLANET is getting more crowded--the human population will increase by one billion people over the next 10 years, and another billion the decade after that. California will add 12 million more people by 2050. More people, more competition, higher rent, more expensive food. Get used to it.
6
I used to live in SF until somewhat recently and yes I work in tech. I was there through the late 90s through 2008. I definitely think technology has exacerbated the housing problem but this article misses a few points. The city going back to Gavin Newsom's administration knew about this housing problem, they only kicked the can down the road. Ed Lee, the current mayor was a supervisor back then. Voters rejected time and time again many propositions that would have helped address this problem - over a decade ago. Voter turn out in SF is abysmal. It is awful to live with that kind of financial fear as a renter, that's why I eventually moved, even though I work in tech. I am glad I did. For the tech industry's part, especially VCs and start-ups, please just start getting better at managing remote workers or open remote offices. Enough.
5
"Ed Lee, the current mayor was a supervisor back then."
-------
Ed Lee was never a supervisor. Rather he was the City Administrator, appointed by Mayor Newsom, not an elected position. He held other appointed positions in city government before that.
-------
Ed Lee was never a supervisor. Rather he was the City Administrator, appointed by Mayor Newsom, not an elected position. He held other appointed positions in city government before that.
2
And he promised not to run for mayor, remember that? Swore he wouldn't. A fraud from day one.
The real inventor of modern computer was an Englishman name Turing and the city that deserves the credit is Cambridge in England. While the profits and credits were sponged by Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and the Silicon valley. This is what Americans do best - profit off of others inventions. The same is true for Detroit - cars were not invented in Detroit unlike what most Americans think. Just like Detroit, San Francisco will fade while Cambridge will keep making the real inventions just like it has for 400 plus years .
Unfortunately, the politics of housing in San Francisco seems to be dominated by a lot of unrealistic and illogical expectations.
The problem is San Francisco is not unique. Many major cities around the world experience have rising, high living costs. The problem is basic economic scarcity. San Francisco is geographically a very small city. Famously, it is only 7 miles by 7 miles. Yet, it is carries a lot of cultural cachet, and is an extremely desirable place to live for many people.
That means you have a lot of demand and very little supply. Naturally, prices are high. The local tech boom may be accentuating the problem because they can afford to pay much more than other residents, but the fundamental problem had been around and won't go away even if tech industry flags.
Preservationists don't want to build more housing to increase supply, because new buildings, particularly high-rises, will diminish the city's appeal. Existing owners don't want this either, as they want their property value to stay sky-high.
So you end up with a desire to force costs to stand still, while supply remains the same and demand continues to rise. That seems to be pure wishful thinking, and I think the unreality of hit is evidenced by this bizarre prayer for a local recession.
The problem is San Francisco is not unique. Many major cities around the world experience have rising, high living costs. The problem is basic economic scarcity. San Francisco is geographically a very small city. Famously, it is only 7 miles by 7 miles. Yet, it is carries a lot of cultural cachet, and is an extremely desirable place to live for many people.
That means you have a lot of demand and very little supply. Naturally, prices are high. The local tech boom may be accentuating the problem because they can afford to pay much more than other residents, but the fundamental problem had been around and won't go away even if tech industry flags.
Preservationists don't want to build more housing to increase supply, because new buildings, particularly high-rises, will diminish the city's appeal. Existing owners don't want this either, as they want their property value to stay sky-high.
So you end up with a desire to force costs to stand still, while supply remains the same and demand continues to rise. That seems to be pure wishful thinking, and I think the unreality of hit is evidenced by this bizarre prayer for a local recession.
2
The most overrated city on the planet.
11
Come on, New York's not that bad.
People need to understand that 1) not all tech workers make millions, 2) tech workers don't enjoy paying high rent either, and 3) tech workers are not the ones evicting. Landlords (most of them are not in the tech industry) are.
The simple fact is there just aren't enough housing compared to the amount of people who want to live in SF (and Bay Area to certain extent). You can perform rent control / etc to try to curb it a little bit but ultimately eventually the market will drive up the price. A lot of tech workers would *love* to pay lower rent and save money too. They just happen to make more which means they can afford to live in the city. I see a lot of anger at these workers but I'm not sure if these anger are really resulting in concrete proposals to fix the issue.
In my opinion SF simply needs more housing, and better control of when and how eviction can happen to protect the existing renters. The latter is a temporarily fix to slow down changes and the former is the key to actually drive the price down. A lot of existing home owners don't want that to protect the look of their homes and their homes' values. Well there's your problem right there. Finding a way to address that will go a long way.
The simple fact is there just aren't enough housing compared to the amount of people who want to live in SF (and Bay Area to certain extent). You can perform rent control / etc to try to curb it a little bit but ultimately eventually the market will drive up the price. A lot of tech workers would *love* to pay lower rent and save money too. They just happen to make more which means they can afford to live in the city. I see a lot of anger at these workers but I'm not sure if these anger are really resulting in concrete proposals to fix the issue.
In my opinion SF simply needs more housing, and better control of when and how eviction can happen to protect the existing renters. The latter is a temporarily fix to slow down changes and the former is the key to actually drive the price down. A lot of existing home owners don't want that to protect the look of their homes and their homes' values. Well there's your problem right there. Finding a way to address that will go a long way.
7
All of coastal California has been turning into a place for the wealthy and mega wealthy, and those that serve them (the servants live at least a few miles inland) for the past 40 years. Witness the recent sacking of the last environmentally responsible Coastal Commission head. There are a few corners and pockets left on the coast (I live in one of them), but not many. Same with Hawaii, and Florida. It's the nature of our economy. It will take subsidized housing to keep lower income people living in the coastal zones.
8
I think the people praying for a tech recession are fooling themselves if they believe it will actually stem rising living costs in the long term. If the tech people don't have money, other people will. San Francisco is a desirable place to live, and if the tech folks aren't driving up costs somebody else with money will come in and do it instead. Perhaps it'll be tycoons from China. Perhaps it will be local speculators. But the supply is so small compared to the demand I doubt we will see any long-term easing of rising costs.
4
I grew up in NYC, in the bad old days, and then lived in SF for almost all of three decades starting in the '70s. And you know, if I had watched my money back then, could easily have bought a three flat in say, South Park, that would be worth, who knows, $10-15m dollars now. But you know what? I didn't, and now every twenty-something in America wants to live in SF, or NYC, or Seattle, or Boston, or DC. The U.S. has always been a very dynamic place economically, and in general, if you don't buy it, you don't own it. That's just the way it is. When I was a kid Soho was a largely vacant former garment district, where artists squatting in giant loft spaces used to spray paint AIR (for Artist in Residence) on the sidewalk outside, so the Fire Dept wouldn't simply assume the building was vacant and let it burn. Where are those artists now?
5
San Franciscans, we are right behind you here in Boulder. Boulder already has about 1/3 more jobs per house as San Francisco, and when all the building is done we will have twice as many. This could have been avoided, or at least mitigated--good people tried to balance jobs to houses about 20 years ago-- but the real estate and business interests killed that effort.
It is possible to have too many jobs, at least if you want to live in a real community.
It is possible to have too many jobs, at least if you want to live in a real community.
2
I'm with the Pizzeria Delfina owner. The boom is a great economic engine for all of Northern California, even all the way out here in the Central Valley. All of these highly skilled young workers will eventually have to buy homes, and most will have to take their cash and skills to the 'burbs, improving communities everywhere. The service workers who can't afford to live in the city will do the same.
8
As a tech worker with a family who rents an apartment in the city, I'm pretty much on both sides of the issue. I'm benefiting from this economy in the form of a high salary from a tech company while being disadvantaged by it in the form of paying a ridiculously high rent and always having to worry about getting evicted. So...it's hard for me to take any sides. I also happen to be an SF native. What can I say? For me it's been both good and bad, but I can see that for so many other people it's made SF completely out of the realm of affordability. I will say this: this news story neglected to mention a major recent development, SF rents have just gone down for the third month in a row. I know - they haven't come down nearly enough, but at least it's a pretty clear sign of things having plateaued.
53
Wealth is not beauty.
I love SF and have been in and out of the city for the past 25 years. I have been in many cities in the world and because of its placement on the ocean and the bay it is unsurpassed in its beauty. I love coming from the north and crossing over the Golden Gate bridge around sundown and watching the sun hit the city off to my left. It's one of the most beautiful sights in the world.
However the craziness that money brings can trample any flower. Tech companies should be pushed further to the south and let SF remain the city by the bay. I fear it will turn into Hong Kong........too much activity in too little room.
I love SF and have been in and out of the city for the past 25 years. I have been in many cities in the world and because of its placement on the ocean and the bay it is unsurpassed in its beauty. I love coming from the north and crossing over the Golden Gate bridge around sundown and watching the sun hit the city off to my left. It's one of the most beautiful sights in the world.
However the craziness that money brings can trample any flower. Tech companies should be pushed further to the south and let SF remain the city by the bay. I fear it will turn into Hong Kong........too much activity in too little room.
1
Typical America - the real inventors of modern computer was Turing and the city of Cambridge in England, while parasites and sponges like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates get all the credit and the money. San Francisco will fade away like Detriot while cities like Cambridge will live on and make the real inventions like it has for 800 plus years
2
San Francisco is like that awful boyfriend/girlfriend that blames you for the problems they had coming into the relationship. The solution to increase demand is to allow the supply to match it. Cities all over the world are begging for the tech industry to take root in their areas, yet San Francisco takes it very much for granted, and even blames tech for its problems. SF housing regulations are absurd and are the root cause of this problem.
5
Having spent most of my life in San Francisco I can only say it's a caricature of what it once was. The charming neighborhoods of 1950's North Beach, Russian Hill or Pacific Heights all now have a sameness to them. Herb Caen was right when he declared San Francisco no longer the Paris of the West having more in common with Hong Kong than Baghdad by the bay. Most of my friends who were natives long ago decamped for other places and the techies did indeed have much to do with the loss of the quality of life, you no longer see the well dressed folks walking down the hill on their way to Maiden Lane or Lefty O'douls for a nightcap, in their place you have people on cell phones slurping their coffees as they walk by the homeless, it really is a microcosm of what has happened to much of America as all the wealth has been captured by the few and the many have been left behind. As an older person I feel a great sense of loss for our country and our young people. I am thankful that I was too unimportant of a person to have caused these problems, as the bankers or corporate chieftains that perpetrated this era of extreme inequality must at some level I hope, feel ashamed of what their greed has created, to take such a beautiful city in a wonderful country full of generous people and destroy it for money is the greatest travesty of our generation. Let's hope we turn it around before there's another Revolution or W.W.II and the attendent horrors when such inequality persists.
70
......very well said.......
........I ADORED Herb Caen, by the way.
........I ADORED Herb Caen, by the way.
The author is only telling half the story. Yes we are experiencing a tech boom Yes we are seeing record numbers of people moving here for high paying jobs. Yes there is upheaval and displacement. What we are not hearing is that we are also producing fewer housing units than ever before. We are putting more and more barriers in front of new housing; fees, exactions, lawsuits, and voter initiatives, and driving up prices. We can have prosperity and equality, but it requires some building and the NIMBYs here who are enjoying huge appreciation in their home values won't allow that to happen.
2
I am a Black man who moved to SF in 1978. At that time the city was about 8% Black; it is now about 4% (not enough to sell out a SF Giants game). I left the city for 20 years and came back three years ago. Most of my Black friends thought I had lost my mind (who would I hang out with?). SF has become much less diverse and is pretty much mostly White people and Asians (Chinese mostly) who by the way make up over 85% of tech workers according to the NYT last week. The same demographic trends are happening in Oakland as Blacks are being pushed out into far east suburbs with rising crime rates.
I can see very little chance that the current trends will be reversed even with the tech bubble bursting because SF is a global city and Chinese money will continue to pour in looking to get out of the Chinese financial debacle under way. Many homes sit empty as they are parking assets. The tech bubble is just part of the problem. In the end what has happened is SF has become one of the most racially segregated cities in the U.S. This rarely gets mentioned. At most public events I attend in SF I am the only Black person. The same is true when I eat in restaurants.
I can see very little chance that the current trends will be reversed even with the tech bubble bursting because SF is a global city and Chinese money will continue to pour in looking to get out of the Chinese financial debacle under way. Many homes sit empty as they are parking assets. The tech bubble is just part of the problem. In the end what has happened is SF has become one of the most racially segregated cities in the U.S. This rarely gets mentioned. At most public events I attend in SF I am the only Black person. The same is true when I eat in restaurants.
86
Yes even back in the day (80s) SF always struck me as such a white city when I'd visit there from NYC. White, segregated, and oblivious to profusion of experiences outside the white middle class world. It's a beautiful city but it's pleasures always seemed to me a bit tame, even melancholic, rather than truly urban.
1
The only place more segregated than SF is the liberal bastion of Marin County.
This is happening in Seattle, too.
1
The impact of tech's economic bubble impacts not just San Francisco but all of the Bay Area. Real Estate and rents are escalating well beyond the means of most working people and as a result people are forced out further and further away increasing commute times and traffic delays. This impacts on everyone's quality of life and well being - except for those receiving the tech salaries which will inevitably be short-lived. Worse of all, San Francisco now resembles NYC as a soulless place emptied of culture, diversity and frankly life.
3
This article is right on the money!
The tech industry has moved in and literally ripping the social and cultural ethos of the city. We have been invaded in just a few years by a new breed of over-paid and over-pampered young elite as this city has never seen before. They are rude, self-centered, and completely disconnected from their surroundings with their ever present gadgets. I wonder what they will do when this artificial "bubble" bursts?
Unfortunately, the cities leadership (listening Ed Lee?) has dug their heads into a hole and are not solving even the most minute problem. Aside from the obvious problem of housing and displacement, the city has an abysmal transit system, and increasing crime rate, and a seemingly unsolvable homeless problem.
Where is all the tax money going?
Well, apparently not into transit, roads, police nor effective social services.
We continue with the same dysfunctional city leadership I've lived with for 35 years!
Just one difference....the fabric will rip this time and it will not be repairable.
Is Michael Bloomberg available? I've got a city for your to straighten out!
The tech industry has moved in and literally ripping the social and cultural ethos of the city. We have been invaded in just a few years by a new breed of over-paid and over-pampered young elite as this city has never seen before. They are rude, self-centered, and completely disconnected from their surroundings with their ever present gadgets. I wonder what they will do when this artificial "bubble" bursts?
Unfortunately, the cities leadership (listening Ed Lee?) has dug their heads into a hole and are not solving even the most minute problem. Aside from the obvious problem of housing and displacement, the city has an abysmal transit system, and increasing crime rate, and a seemingly unsolvable homeless problem.
Where is all the tax money going?
Well, apparently not into transit, roads, police nor effective social services.
We continue with the same dysfunctional city leadership I've lived with for 35 years!
Just one difference....the fabric will rip this time and it will not be repairable.
Is Michael Bloomberg available? I've got a city for your to straighten out!
8
misuse of the word "literally"
1
Sorry, but Bloomberg did all the things that Lee has done, allowing all kinds of luxury tax dodge foreign money laundering super luxury high rises and not even running a lot of things well like blowing hundreds of millions on a city pay system that all went to corruption, and running an old time repressive police force that the return of Guiliani's (of all things) much more forward thinking police chief was needed to fix, and more.
1
Focusing on the Tech boom, while a terrific story, gives a pass to the longtime residents and activists who have fought to keep the housing stock low in a selfish attempt to preserve neighborhood aesthetics and ensure the ever-rising value of their own homes. Techies are an easy group to hate thanks to their perceived entitlement and inflated wages and sense of self worth, but don't disregard the long-time homeowners who have benefited from skyrocketing home prices while elected officials stuck their heads in the economic sands by pretending that they could wish away a generation of college grads who don't want to live in the suburbs as their parents did. The complaints about the cost of living and the tech buses are too often followed by suggestions of hare-brained schemes such as housing moratoriums. If we want to seriously tackle the cost of living problem, more housing and public transportation is the solution.
5
I left the city for Monterey 2 hours south of the city. Best thing I ever did. Enough was enough. Thankfully I still own my house up there and soak the tech crowd to live in it. Irony?
3
I shutter to think where all the tech new-hires will live especially with the current expansion of Google and Apple with their new facility.
I'd love to see some of the valley’s "design innovation" go to solving this problem in lieu of creating another app clone.
What ever happened with the Google Barge? Perhaps corporate housing could move into floating real estate?
Truthfully, as a former design professor at SF State with 20 years product design experience, I never thought I'd leave the area (if only temporarily). In the end, it was cheaper to live and work in Waikiki via AirBnb than to pay SF rent.
Could this be the era of the digital nomad / remote worker?
I'd love to see some of the valley’s "design innovation" go to solving this problem in lieu of creating another app clone.
What ever happened with the Google Barge? Perhaps corporate housing could move into floating real estate?
Truthfully, as a former design professor at SF State with 20 years product design experience, I never thought I'd leave the area (if only temporarily). In the end, it was cheaper to live and work in Waikiki via AirBnb than to pay SF rent.
Could this be the era of the digital nomad / remote worker?
1
Unfortunately tech has become the catch-all scapegoat for many of the underlying problems in San Francisco. It's a shame - it hasn't all been great, but it's also driven phenomenal wage growth and low unemployment here. However, the core issue around the extraordinary housing prices is a lack of adequate supply. Yes, technology may be driving many people to SF, but there is no denying the simple fact that we are adding about 1,500 new housing units per year for 10,000 new residents. We live in a city with the most arduous and expensive planning and zoning regulations and processes in the United States. Projects take years to get approved. Neighbors fight those projects because they don't want to see San Francisco change. The net result is more people fighting for an ever dwindling number of units (and landlords that want to get in on the gold rush).
4
Lived/worked in SF in the 1970/80s.Loved it.It was expensive then(relatively speaking) and it's more expensive now.Went back for a long visit a few years ago.SF is not the same.An analogy is SF was a beautiful lady when I lived there,but now it reminds me of the once beautiful lady but she's aged and lost most of her beauty/charm.
Try using less misogynistic analogies in the future.
2
Oh man, I can really relate to that feeling of cluelessness. Like Helana Corda, I work in a public school and work two nights/week at a restaurant to help pay my student loans. My roommates and tech friends, who mean well, are constantly telling me to apply to a start up and work in tech. Meanwhile, I see a lot of them as unfulfilled: moving around, changing jobs, not passionate about their positions. Why are they working to convince me to move away from work I find meaningful?
"'I have a lot of friends who work in those companies, and they literally encourage me every week to quit my job and do what they’re doing,' said Helana Corda, who teaches sixth graders at a public middle school, is a part-time bartender and works at a program for disadvantaged children. 'They think they’re trying to help, but I feel slightly offended.'"
"'I have a lot of friends who work in those companies, and they literally encourage me every week to quit my job and do what they’re doing,' said Helana Corda, who teaches sixth graders at a public middle school, is a part-time bartender and works at a program for disadvantaged children. 'They think they’re trying to help, but I feel slightly offended.'"
71
Talk about tradeoffs--"meaningful work" vs. decent pay and benefits. Life is trucky like that.
Lived in San Francisco for about 35 yrs until 8 yrs ago. Rents kept going up a lot since the 90s -- that is if one could find something reasonably priced that fit ones needs. Flats were converted to tenants-in-common. Realized the only way I could afford to live there was to buy in The Bayview (the only affordable real estate at the time) which increased in value more than any place in the city because it was undervalued. The discontent didn't stop with home ownership. Like the computer business (shopping online, dating, etc), the new tech arrivals became increasingly unsociable from people who grew up in an age of I don't know what -- charter schools, uppper middle class priviege ? that cannot seem to empathize with others out of their perceived social or economic class. New restaurants, a new bottle of wine -- La Dolce Vita -- yet these are very bland unappetizing versions of that. Philistine who are not conversant with the humanities. They have there cell phones glued to their faces and apps instead of a real sex life like 70s Castro or Hippie Haight heaven. The Scott McKenzie song now plays "If you are going to San Francisco be sure to bring lots of DO RE ME not a flower in your hair! To say these people suck would be a complement!!
3
As an SF native, I can see many concerns regarding the city's growth are absolutely well-founded. However, those that bemoan the loss of some magical utopia that existed before the tech boom arrived either weren't actually here for it, or they're suffering from memory lapses due to extracurricular activity indulged in during those supposedly pre-capitalist times.
San Francisco was a far dirtier, far more dangerous place than what it is today. I personally thought that was part of the charm, but very large swaths of the city were empty, rundown, and very, very sketchy. I know former SFPD who claim to not like the town today because "I catch criminals, and there's no criminals anymore".
It was NEVER a cheap city. Someone may claim to have scored a very low rent apartment in 1972, but the cost was probably commensurate with wages, and if it wasn't congratulations- through hustle, they were able to make it. Because that's always what SF has always been about- a place where you needed to work it to have the privilege of living in.
The City changes. It's a living, breathing, wonderful place. We may not love every new person that moves here, but the one change that would scare me more than anything, is that it ceases to change at all.
San Francisco was a far dirtier, far more dangerous place than what it is today. I personally thought that was part of the charm, but very large swaths of the city were empty, rundown, and very, very sketchy. I know former SFPD who claim to not like the town today because "I catch criminals, and there's no criminals anymore".
It was NEVER a cheap city. Someone may claim to have scored a very low rent apartment in 1972, but the cost was probably commensurate with wages, and if it wasn't congratulations- through hustle, they were able to make it. Because that's always what SF has always been about- a place where you needed to work it to have the privilege of living in.
The City changes. It's a living, breathing, wonderful place. We may not love every new person that moves here, but the one change that would scare me more than anything, is that it ceases to change at all.
9
This is exactly what Bernie Sanders is talking about in his campaign: the sharp contrast between the wealthy and nearly everyone else in this country. We need teachers, nurses, house painters, police, firefighters, fast-food workers, restaurant servers in this country more than we need more people to write code and create new apps. And those teachers, nurses, house painters et al should be able to live in the place(s) where they teach, care for the sick and paint homes.
6
Reality and the free market disagree with you.
3
So the intolerant left, who deride the right as being forever xenophobic for getting upset about being displaced by illegal aliens, is upset about being displaced by rich people... Oh the irony.
10
Tell me the old old story. There are cheap cities all over the nation, but some people want to have San Francisco.......................or Seattle.....................or Austin, Boston, NYC, etc. The money comes in and the fun moves out, and some people can't cope. A creative alternative person is at home anywhere.
2
The population of California is doubling every 30 years. Sooner or later, one way or another, that pattern's going to change. Maybe we'll do it calmly and wisely. Maybe we'll mindlessly sleepwalk into a degrading Malthusian nightmare. The future's here, we are it, we are on our own.
1
While we're busy throwing stones and blame at the Google bus, is the media ever going to pick up on the fact that the CA real estate market has been used over the past several years as a giant washing machine for corrupt cash flowing in from China, Russia and other regimes?
The China problem is a once in a generation exodus of ill-gotten cash to get ahead of corruption crackdowns. They do it by paying all cash for CA homes, shutting out residents in the process, and leaving them empty or being an absentee landlord while maintaining a foothold in the UC system for their kids should they really need to pull the parachute.
It's past time that we followed the lead of other first-world nations, and put restrictions on absentee ownership of real estate. Australia, NZ, England and others have restrictions and taxes in place for this same reason.
Yes, tech is a factor in the affordability problem here, but it is not the only culprit. It's a perfect storm of NIMBYism, foreign cash, tech, and awful government. A $9 billion budget for a city of 800,000 and much of the City is an open air insane asylum/latrine.
The China problem is a once in a generation exodus of ill-gotten cash to get ahead of corruption crackdowns. They do it by paying all cash for CA homes, shutting out residents in the process, and leaving them empty or being an absentee landlord while maintaining a foothold in the UC system for their kids should they really need to pull the parachute.
It's past time that we followed the lead of other first-world nations, and put restrictions on absentee ownership of real estate. Australia, NZ, England and others have restrictions and taxes in place for this same reason.
Yes, tech is a factor in the affordability problem here, but it is not the only culprit. It's a perfect storm of NIMBYism, foreign cash, tech, and awful government. A $9 billion budget for a city of 800,000 and much of the City is an open air insane asylum/latrine.
107
Well, folks, don't plan on moving to Oakland. I was evicted from SF for an owner move-in 5 years ago when my landlord passed away, and was forced (economically) to move to Oakland. Now, I simply wouldn't be able to afford to move here, either. The wave of monied hipsters has wafted across the Bay...where will the rest of us go next? San Leandro, I guess.
1
It's interesting that a parent of Synergy makes that quote, considering just going to that school is sort of up there with the 'elite'. ($19,000/year in tuition alone)
3
Having been a Californian most of my life, I have spent a lot of time in Los Angeles and San Francisco, among many other cities and towns in our state.
In the last few years, San Francisco has gotten horribly worse as a living environment for most people. It feels oppressively dense, is filthy, is clogged with traffic, and its people are sullen and angry much of the time with good reason. I have relatives there, living in a small apartment despite making decent money, and they want out. Even if they have to keep their jobs there and endure a long commute, they are finding everyday life unbearable. I sympathize.
My wife and I fled Los Angeles last year as it was becoming such a congested, noisy, unpleasant mess. San Francisco is worse now. I would not live in either place at this stage of my life. There is only one answer, and it is not one that will ever happen absent war, pestilence, or a killer earthquake: fewer people. Instead, more will keep pouring in, and like the proverbial rats in the famous psychology experiment, when enough of them are crammed in, they will begin cannibalizing each other, if not literally, than in other unpleasant ways.
Urbanity has its limits. We are seeing them around the world these days. I loved San Francisco in the 1960's through the 1980's. I don't anymore. And obviously, I am not alone.
In the last few years, San Francisco has gotten horribly worse as a living environment for most people. It feels oppressively dense, is filthy, is clogged with traffic, and its people are sullen and angry much of the time with good reason. I have relatives there, living in a small apartment despite making decent money, and they want out. Even if they have to keep their jobs there and endure a long commute, they are finding everyday life unbearable. I sympathize.
My wife and I fled Los Angeles last year as it was becoming such a congested, noisy, unpleasant mess. San Francisco is worse now. I would not live in either place at this stage of my life. There is only one answer, and it is not one that will ever happen absent war, pestilence, or a killer earthquake: fewer people. Instead, more will keep pouring in, and like the proverbial rats in the famous psychology experiment, when enough of them are crammed in, they will begin cannibalizing each other, if not literally, than in other unpleasant ways.
Urbanity has its limits. We are seeing them around the world these days. I loved San Francisco in the 1960's through the 1980's. I don't anymore. And obviously, I am not alone.
2
San Francisco's problem is just an extreme case of the general structure of a winner takes all society. San Francisco is obviously a desirable city in which to live but without any restraint on it being sold to the highest bidder, it will be.
1
There is one way uber-rich tech darlings are likely to get equal treatment along side long time residents - the parking patrol is willing to slap anyone lingering a nanosecond too long at a meter with a $76 ticket in a NY minute. And try finding anywhere to park in the city that's not metered or two-hour limit parking. Time to move.....
One particularly frustrating element of this problem is that the San Francisco Unified School District's pay scale is lower than nearly all neighboring cities in the Bay Area, despite having the highest cost of living.
What that means for me as a public school educator is that many of my colleagues live outside of San Francisco and commute for hours each day to teach in the city. The rest of us pay rents that take up much of our paychecks. I would stay at my school in this city for my career... if the rental & housing markets would allow me to. But the only educators who own houses in San Francisco bought their houses a while ago AND have a partner who works in a more lucrative industry.
I fear that the "teachers can't afford housing/got evicted/are leaving San Francisco" stories are now so common that people are becoming numb to them. I am absolutely hoping for tech companies to leave San Francisco, as it would mean manageable rental/housing costs that would allow teachers and families to stay here.
What that means for me as a public school educator is that many of my colleagues live outside of San Francisco and commute for hours each day to teach in the city. The rest of us pay rents that take up much of our paychecks. I would stay at my school in this city for my career... if the rental & housing markets would allow me to. But the only educators who own houses in San Francisco bought their houses a while ago AND have a partner who works in a more lucrative industry.
I fear that the "teachers can't afford housing/got evicted/are leaving San Francisco" stories are now so common that people are becoming numb to them. I am absolutely hoping for tech companies to leave San Francisco, as it would mean manageable rental/housing costs that would allow teachers and families to stay here.
8
Virtual reality gets better and better, real life gets worse and worse.
3
I fondly remember my days in North Beach in the late 1970s/early 80s. It was a real neighborhood. My local watering hole and easy-going place to eat was the Gold Spike. I could talk about the cool walk-up two bedroom flat we had in an old classic Victorian, so affordable, we could leave the city to work other places for weeks or a couple of months at a time and still pay the rent so we had a place to come back to in the city.
The Gold Spike is long gone. The two bedroom place we had a few blocks from the wharf would cost 10 grand a month now. The city's long-term residents who had regular work in restaurants, schools, retail, food store and elsewhere are either gone or on the way out.
Progress, right?
The Gold Spike is long gone. The two bedroom place we had a few blocks from the wharf would cost 10 grand a month now. The city's long-term residents who had regular work in restaurants, schools, retail, food store and elsewhere are either gone or on the way out.
Progress, right?
1
Unpopular opinion: San Francisco is the greatest city in the U.S., so it should be the most expensive.
(Get rid of the homeless and it would be the greatest city in the WORLD. Seriously.)
(Get rid of the homeless and it would be the greatest city in the WORLD. Seriously.)
5
Those tech companies will eventually move to Texas, and the whining SF leftists will be left to pay their own bills.
4
I moved to SF in the 80's. Back then, people complained that the city had lost its soul, that it was nothing like it was in the 60s or 70s. And yet, as someone who worked at SFGH (now the Zuckerberg SF General Hospital) for many years, I was deeply appreciative for all that every single one of my committed, activist, ethnically diverse, socially conscious colleagues did to make world class health care accessible for tens of thousands of uninsured San Franciscans. Has SF changed? Of course it has. But there is still a fundamental core of progressive people who are still striving to make a difference in the community.
Mixed feelings on this. The dot-com bust of 2000 was a blow to the SF economy. People whose jobs serviced, or had secondary benefits from, the tech industry were hit hard. Upper level executives breezed through that recession. Another bust would likely wipe out blue-collar San Francisco altogether.
2
The bursting of this bubble can't come soon enough for some of us. I love SF but don't want to live in a city that only the Rich can afford.
3
I'll be happy to see it happen. First settlers in CA from my family were in the late 1500s. I was born in Berkeley. My son was born in Alameda. I had to move out to afford to raise him and see him simultaneously.
There was an old woman who was from a newer family who came to SF in the 1800s. She was a neighbor and I remember her crying...actually weeping because she had to leave her apartment due to rent increases.
Now we can't even count on moving th Oakland since it has also gone through the roof.
I just want my home to be a place where people who AREN'T tech billionaires...or even billionaires at all...can afford to raise families again.
My son is now in college and going into finance mainly so he can do whatever he has to do to go HOME AGAIN.
Oh, and see that picture...the first one in the story with the people sitting on the grass. That's Dolores Park, up the street from where I went to school. That apartment at the back of the picture...or maybe one to the left of it has windows that overlook the streetcar line...and if you took the J Church home from school you rode through trees and could look into the apartment windows...yeah, I still miss my home.
There was an old woman who was from a newer family who came to SF in the 1800s. She was a neighbor and I remember her crying...actually weeping because she had to leave her apartment due to rent increases.
Now we can't even count on moving th Oakland since it has also gone through the roof.
I just want my home to be a place where people who AREN'T tech billionaires...or even billionaires at all...can afford to raise families again.
My son is now in college and going into finance mainly so he can do whatever he has to do to go HOME AGAIN.
Oh, and see that picture...the first one in the story with the people sitting on the grass. That's Dolores Park, up the street from where I went to school. That apartment at the back of the picture...or maybe one to the left of it has windows that overlook the streetcar line...and if you took the J Church home from school you rode through trees and could look into the apartment windows...yeah, I still miss my home.
84
It's actually Duboce Park.
See http://sfist.com/2016/02/18/photo_du_jour_evicted_us_too.php
See http://sfist.com/2016/02/18/photo_du_jour_evicted_us_too.php
1
Anyone who knows San Francisco would know that this is not Dolores Park, but Duboce Park. Just because your ancestors came before doesn't mean you get to stay. I'm not saying it's a good thing to uproot people, but we've got some work to do on our economic and political systems if you want to make it otherwise.
2
That is actually a picture of of Duboce Park.
But the point remains that everyone who rents, even middle class professionals like doctors are being crushed by huge rent increases and evictions.
But the point remains that everyone who rents, even middle class professionals like doctors are being crushed by huge rent increases and evictions.
2
As mecca of alternative culture--as a place of refuge for anyone who was a little bit different or vulnerable because of it--SF is dead. A food activist recently told me that there have been as many as 1,000 fires in the Mission in the last five years--landlords burning housing that the poor and middle class could once afford--in order to capitalize on the boom. Shameful, but the poor and middle class are being driven out of the entire state.
There's something wrong with your liberal Valhalla if only the rich can afford it.
There's something wrong with your liberal Valhalla if only the rich can afford it.
8
The Mission is full of old wood buildings, with electric services that were state of the art for 1930. This too is a source of fires.
Sounds like San Fran is turning into an oligarchy.
3
Allow and build more high-density housing. People want to live there, which is great. Airbnb potentially makes properties more affordable. Nothing is perfect, but living in the Bay Area is close. Busing to work, ride sharing and encouraging bike riding are all preferable to more cars on the road.
38,000 people died in traffic accidents and 4,000,000 were injured last year. And this writer claims that someone will soon get hurt in front of a school where no one has yet been harmed.
There are problems. Solve them. And count your blessings.
38,000 people died in traffic accidents and 4,000,000 were injured last year. And this writer claims that someone will soon get hurt in front of a school where no one has yet been harmed.
There are problems. Solve them. And count your blessings.
1
SF is progressing, much to the chagrin of the progressives posting here. Seems progress itself needs progressive approval before progressing.
4
The best decision I made was to leave San Francisco in 2005. How people who don't make healthy six-figure incomes can still justify living there, I have no idea. Some of them seem to cling to the idea that the city is unique and "the best place on earth" (as a local news station used to say), but I don't miss the constant windy 60-degree weather and lack of central heating nor the baroque hassles that come with everyday life. (If you have to deal with the latter, why not live in a truly great city like New York?) The idea that San Francisco is some sort of haven of liberal thinking, difficult to find in the rest of the country, seems stuck in the 70s. More power to you, San Franciscans who still think all the craziness is worth it, but I can't find an ounce of envy for you.
8
Welcome to our world on the East coast. I am a borne and bred New Yorker. The changes are and were rapid. No middle class person, let alone a poor family could afford to live in NYC. The "trickle down" effect did not happen. And it will not. You are judged by your wealth and if you don't have any...OH well! People expecting the 1% to give them a helping hand are putting their eggs in the wrong basket. And when they find the next hot, new place the 1% will be gone. They have bulldozed and are destroying our nature resources. But do they care? NO...they do not.
7
Those who deride others for assuming the “right” to live in a specific place may do well to note that all rights are human inventions, including property rights. The question of who “owns” real estate comes down to equations of power. What of the native Ohlone people who lived in San Francisco for millennia before the arrival of rich foreigners? Those quickly displaced natives learned a thing or two about the slipperiness of right to property.
We create our rights collectively. The social construct we’ve agreed upon here in the U.S.A. (which seems to also include San Francisco) is that through democratic processes citizens get to fine-tune those things called rights. Because the overwhelming majority of San Franciscans are, and always have been, urban renters, long ago they granted themselves renters’ rights. The prime example of this is rent control. Rent control was a right created to ensure that long-term San Franciscans aren’t pushed out of their homeland by rich foreigners who arrive in either ships or, lately, Italian cars with gullwing doors.
Rights are inventions of those who possess the greatest power, and 800,000 voters have enormous power. Use it. It’s time to adjust and redefine rights and laws (I don’t see much difference between the two) to bring about greater good for the majority of San Franciscans
We create our rights collectively. The social construct we’ve agreed upon here in the U.S.A. (which seems to also include San Francisco) is that through democratic processes citizens get to fine-tune those things called rights. Because the overwhelming majority of San Franciscans are, and always have been, urban renters, long ago they granted themselves renters’ rights. The prime example of this is rent control. Rent control was a right created to ensure that long-term San Franciscans aren’t pushed out of their homeland by rich foreigners who arrive in either ships or, lately, Italian cars with gullwing doors.
Rights are inventions of those who possess the greatest power, and 800,000 voters have enormous power. Use it. It’s time to adjust and redefine rights and laws (I don’t see much difference between the two) to bring about greater good for the majority of San Franciscans
6
Incidentally on the "Air BnB" proposition, which got turned down roughly 55-45 in November:
1. Although there were dozens of arguments on both sides of the issue in the voter pamphlet, SF has a "true source of funding" law that requires disclosure of who paid to place the argument in the voter pamphlet. There were only two sources – one pro, one con. The "con" arguments, not surprisingly were all paid for by Air BnB. The "pro" arguments were all paid for by a hotel workers' union.
2. Several key backers of the proposition (which undoubtedly will be revived, in slightly different form) argued that the proliferation of Air BnB spots in SF has constricted the housing supply, since those units otherwise might be available for longer-term rentals. I have no idea whether that argument has merit, but I do know that it was true for my own son, who kept his apartment long after he'd moved back in with us, just so he could rent it out on Air BnB. Presumably his landlord would have rented it to someone else if my son hadn't been doing that.
1. Although there were dozens of arguments on both sides of the issue in the voter pamphlet, SF has a "true source of funding" law that requires disclosure of who paid to place the argument in the voter pamphlet. There were only two sources – one pro, one con. The "con" arguments, not surprisingly were all paid for by Air BnB. The "pro" arguments were all paid for by a hotel workers' union.
2. Several key backers of the proposition (which undoubtedly will be revived, in slightly different form) argued that the proliferation of Air BnB spots in SF has constricted the housing supply, since those units otherwise might be available for longer-term rentals. I have no idea whether that argument has merit, but I do know that it was true for my own son, who kept his apartment long after he'd moved back in with us, just so he could rent it out on Air BnB. Presumably his landlord would have rented it to someone else if my son hadn't been doing that.
2
Your son was likely in violation of his lease—that's not something he should be proud of.
4
Air BnB's purported mission was to be a service where people like your son could rent a spare room or offer their apartment during brief periods of vacancy: a holiday weekend, a couple of weeks while away on vacation, etc. He'd make back some rent, and some traveler would have an interesting option for a place to stay. Moving home with mom and dad to become a step-landlord was never the intention, and clearly an abuse of his lease. But now everybody's a freelance hotel operator and AirBnB is raking in the money, so are they going to protest? Interestingly, there have been laws on the books for years against using your car as a taxi and your home as a hotel, it was just never easy to do it, so few people bothered. Now through the magic of apps everybody can sidestep regulations so easily, how could things possibly be illegal?
1
One would think that at least SOME of the 'enlightened" leaders of these financially-successful tech giants would understand that it is in their interest -- as well as that of the rest of the area's residents -- to significantly support a vital hub of a city with a strong middle and working class that keeps the gears moving and the parts working. Without that, their existential bubble will eventually burst from its own self-delusion about the benefit they bring to the Bay Area by Divine Right....a city that collapses under them, taking them along into the cold waters of the bay. Their absence from the conversation reminds me of the hubris of the Wall Street bankers and financiers of the 1980s, and we all know what happened to them, and by extension , all of us.
4
Born in SF, grew up in pre Silicon Valley. Now I live in the East Bay. I would not be able to afford to live here if I hadn't bought my house in the '80's. I work in education. My kids can't afford to live here. Traffic is terrible. I hope never to leave, but wouldn't mind if a few million others would.
Boom towns usually die down eventually. San Francisco has done it several times before and will do it again.
Boom towns usually die down eventually. San Francisco has done it several times before and will do it again.
4
" I hope never to leave, but wouldn't mind if a few million others would."
And isn't that attitude basically the root of the problem?
And isn't that attitude basically the root of the problem?
1
It'll be instructive to watch the liberals kill the goose that laid the golden eggs.
9
I believe S.F. is experiencing what many New Yorkers have experienced for years. It's called economic cycle. There was a time in the 50's and 60's that found S.F. as a middle-class city then the hippie movement came. Whole middleclass S.F. neighborhoods dropped down into obscurity. Nobody wanted to live in an area where people were sleeping on the streets, taking over the parks, etc. The same people complaining now had nothing to say back then when that was happening. The city's residents have for decades fought residential growth. Now, construction companies and investors cannot possibly keep up with demand to build high rises. And, remember they are restricted in what areas they can build. Also, they have to be very careful. It's not cheap building a high rise in a city like S.F. Everything in economics is a pendulum. It's swinging one way now, it will swing the other way in time. All neighborhoods/cities rise and fall and rise again. The eastbay has become much more expensive as well, but still way, way cheaper than S.F. on down to San Jose.
27
Nobody is asking WHY affluent people are flocking to coastal cities. I live in Manhattan. No tech bubble here. But people keep moving into the city.
30 years ago, people wanted to live in nice suburbs. But now, even though the internet has decentralized society to an immense degree, people want to crowd themselves into cities. Nobody likes the reason: Obesity.
Last year, I bought a car and started taking day trips outside the city. Wow. Once I got 10 miles outside a major city. people started to get heavier and heavier. My building in NYC (where a 1BR rents for 3,500/month) is about 95% thin people. It's as if the building actively chooses thin tenants. If got in my car and drove 40 miles north, I'd be surrounded by 75% overweight people.
Like I said, nobody likes the reason.
30 years ago, people wanted to live in nice suburbs. But now, even though the internet has decentralized society to an immense degree, people want to crowd themselves into cities. Nobody likes the reason: Obesity.
Last year, I bought a car and started taking day trips outside the city. Wow. Once I got 10 miles outside a major city. people started to get heavier and heavier. My building in NYC (where a 1BR rents for 3,500/month) is about 95% thin people. It's as if the building actively chooses thin tenants. If got in my car and drove 40 miles north, I'd be surrounded by 75% overweight people.
Like I said, nobody likes the reason.
4
Quite a revealing comment here. It's class Avery is talking about, not geography or means of transportation. If Avery were to travel 2 miles to East Harlem he'd see working class people every bit as obese as in the suburbs. If he were to take his day trips to places where people just like him live - like Scarsdale, Greenwich, Westport -- they'd be pleasantly thin, athletic and well-dressed, just like the kind of Manhattanites he likes to hang around with.
8
could it, possibly, be that cities tend to be populated by the very yound (i.e., 20s) while suburbs are middle age and family adults (you know, the ones that cannot get barely exercise)?
2
I love Westport. That's where Paul Newman lived.
In Franzen's The Corrections, Chip, while shopping at Dean & Deluca, remarks upon the marvelous, almost miraculous slenderness of all stroller-pushing mothers in SoHo.
It's always about class, except when it's not. back in 2000, when I moved to south Williamsburg, al the hipsters were skinny folk. 8 skinny hipsters were crowding into 3BR lofts. same thing in Bushwick a few years later. Many of these hipsters didn't have much income. They just wanted to be around other skinny hipsters.
In Franzen's The Corrections, Chip, while shopping at Dean & Deluca, remarks upon the marvelous, almost miraculous slenderness of all stroller-pushing mothers in SoHo.
It's always about class, except when it's not. back in 2000, when I moved to south Williamsburg, al the hipsters were skinny folk. 8 skinny hipsters were crowding into 3BR lofts. same thing in Bushwick a few years later. Many of these hipsters didn't have much income. They just wanted to be around other skinny hipsters.
1
This guy must not live here:
"The problem with real estate in SF is that there is just not enough being built."
Anyone who actually lives here knows there is a very great deal of new housing being built, and much, much more in the pipeline. Within 1/2 mile of where I live, for example, are two major projects slated to start in a few years -- one for 560 units, the other for around 350-400 units.
It WOULD be accurate to say there's a shortage of housing available RIGHT NOW, but that probably will change in a few years -- possibly dramatically, if there's a downturn in the tech industry just about the time all that new housing comes on-line.
"The problem with real estate in SF is that there is just not enough being built."
Anyone who actually lives here knows there is a very great deal of new housing being built, and much, much more in the pipeline. Within 1/2 mile of where I live, for example, are two major projects slated to start in a few years -- one for 560 units, the other for around 350-400 units.
It WOULD be accurate to say there's a shortage of housing available RIGHT NOW, but that probably will change in a few years -- possibly dramatically, if there's a downturn in the tech industry just about the time all that new housing comes on-line.
4
Wow, the arrogance and utter lack of humility in that Justin Keller comment is startling. Perhaps he should spend a week in the shoes of someone with mental illness, or who has important cognitive deficits, or who grew up in a chaotic, traumatizing environment where the building blocks for a stable, fulfilling adult life barely existed. And then try getting a job that pays poverty wages.
10
that's not arrogance and lack of humility; it's a personality disorder.
3
None of the people complaining about the "overpaid" tech workers would turn down a pay raise themselves.
SF has a finite amount of space. Some people who want to live there can't afford it. They want the tech bubble to burst, presumably so that some people lose their jobs and have to move, leaving vacant apartments. In other words, you need someone else to suffer so that you can get what you covet. Nice.
SF has a finite amount of space. Some people who want to live there can't afford it. They want the tech bubble to burst, presumably so that some people lose their jobs and have to move, leaving vacant apartments. In other words, you need someone else to suffer so that you can get what you covet. Nice.
12
More evidence that the left is crazy: a bunch of liberals decrying the success of techie liberals- in posts made on a computer! You can't make this stuff up!! You libs are using their products, while demanding that their industry crash, because supposedly when an industry crashes that's good for the economy or something that benefits you. You libs are not capable of governing
14
Larry, I knew plenty of conservatives living in North and South Dakota who were just praying for the day that oil would collapse so life could become affordable and pleasant there again. Are you also saying they are incapable of governing too?
Of all the conservatives in the Dakotas I know, none hoped for an oil crash. But it happened regardless, so why don't you check in on the Dakotans and see how they're "enjoying" the oil bust?
I guess I am missing something. No one is entitled to live wherever they want. If you want to live in SF then build a career in high tech. If you can't afford to live in San Francisco then move somewhere you can live. Why do people think their wishes must be granted? Work harder!
20
Yes, you are missing something. A city needs all kinds of people to function. Teachers, nurses, fire fighters, bus drivers, etc. Currently more than half our firefighters live outside the city. When there is a big quake, the Bay Bridge will be closed until it can be inspected. Who will help the injured and put out the fires? Some civilians have been trained but we can fight only three smallest fires. The city will burn.
1
Stories like this make me exceptionally grateful for my 600sq ft 1-bedroom in one of the nicer areas of Philadelphia ($675/month for the last 4 yrs). I have wonderful restaurants, museums and top-notch universities a stone's throw away. And if I need a change of pace, NYC, DC, and Baltimore are all less than 2 hrs drive or train ride.
4
yes but what is the job market like in Philadelphia?
2
The trouble is, in a place like San Francisco (or Seattle or Brooklyn) so many of the purported spokesman for the "working class families" are themselves relatively well-to-do professional and creative folks, and who no doubt caused rents and property values to rise when they moved in during earlier waves of migration to these long-trendy places. For example, I doubt that Mr. Aaron Peskin ever toiled in a laundry or a restaurant kitchen, or ever had to wash sidewalks fouled by San Francisco's legendary homeless population.
9
Shame on you, Justin Keller! Do you know how selfish you sound? The people who were here before you have as much right as you to be in SF.
You don't want to see pain and suffering, but here you are, with a good job and security, whining like a big baby about a situation people like you helped create.
At least you are not actually feeling that pain and suffering. Where is the compassion? Good God! May be Pope f Francis should come to SF and implore the techies to show some concern for those that they have helped displaced.
Why do you need your own shuttle? Why can't you use public transportation like those you despise? (I actually want to know this) Don't want to mingle with the great unwashed?
Other cities should keep San Francisco in mind before entertaining the thought of creating a tech hub in their community. I can see this happening elsewhere.
You don't want to see pain and suffering, but here you are, with a good job and security, whining like a big baby about a situation people like you helped create.
At least you are not actually feeling that pain and suffering. Where is the compassion? Good God! May be Pope f Francis should come to SF and implore the techies to show some concern for those that they have helped displaced.
Why do you need your own shuttle? Why can't you use public transportation like those you despise? (I actually want to know this) Don't want to mingle with the great unwashed?
Other cities should keep San Francisco in mind before entertaining the thought of creating a tech hub in their community. I can see this happening elsewhere.
5
"Shame on you, Justin Keller! Do you know how selfish you sound? The people who were here before you have as much right as you to be in SF."
Spot on. The right to purchase a house should be guaranteed regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or country of national origin.
"May be Pope f Francis should come to SF and implore the techies to show some concern for those that they have helped displaced."
Right, now there's a force in real-estate. He could purchase real-estate and donate it to the poor in San Francisco.
Spot on. The right to purchase a house should be guaranteed regardless of race, creed, sexual orientation or country of national origin.
"May be Pope f Francis should come to SF and implore the techies to show some concern for those that they have helped displaced."
Right, now there's a force in real-estate. He could purchase real-estate and donate it to the poor in San Francisco.
2
A right to purchase a house? That's how Big Government Democrats caused the housing bubble and crash of 2008
3
In 2008 those nefarious Democrats George Bush and Dick Cheney were still driving the bus.
We recently moved to San Francisco from D.C. to work for tech companies, so we have become quite immersed in the issues raised by this article.
Normally, any city would view as a godsend the opportunity to house the most vibrant economic sector in the world. For reasons that are unclear to us, San Francisco instead appears to view this a hindrance rather than an opportunity. The problems of longtime San Francisco residents and tech workers with housing affordability could be largely alleviated by just greenlighting more housing, the denser the better, particularly in SOMA, Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, Bayshore, and South San Francisco. People speak too often of cities being expensive, all in the passive voice. A city does not choose to become expensive; rather, political leaders of a city, often answering to its richest landowners, make deliberate choices that limit the supply of housing, which drives up prices. A better housing policy would just be to build lots of high density housing in areas that can effectively commute, preferably by rail or bus, to their jobs. Currently, instead of banding together to help build a modern San Francisco for this day and age, longtime residents are pitted against tech workers for artificially scarce housing stock. This need not be the case.
Normally, any city would view as a godsend the opportunity to house the most vibrant economic sector in the world. For reasons that are unclear to us, San Francisco instead appears to view this a hindrance rather than an opportunity. The problems of longtime San Francisco residents and tech workers with housing affordability could be largely alleviated by just greenlighting more housing, the denser the better, particularly in SOMA, Dogpatch, Potrero Hill, Bayshore, and South San Francisco. People speak too often of cities being expensive, all in the passive voice. A city does not choose to become expensive; rather, political leaders of a city, often answering to its richest landowners, make deliberate choices that limit the supply of housing, which drives up prices. A better housing policy would just be to build lots of high density housing in areas that can effectively commute, preferably by rail or bus, to their jobs. Currently, instead of banding together to help build a modern San Francisco for this day and age, longtime residents are pitted against tech workers for artificially scarce housing stock. This need not be the case.
191
Much of what you say is true, but you let some others off the hook. Yes, the politicians and their zoning/development decisions contribute mightily to the problems of affordable housing.
Don't forget though that many of these techie young people, fresh from school and paid far more than they arguably are worth (and sadly often with little appreciation of what many have had to do to struggle for years to earn far less while working harder), come to look for a house with pockets full of money and then exacerbate the problem. People selling property are going to take what the market will bear, and which those buyers are willing to pony up. Property values going up 50 or 75% is purely artificial and only driven by the willing buyer. A dumpy old house "worth" half again as much as it was the year before is not intrinsic value, it's a mirage, albeit one that is in real dollars that shuts out more and more people.
Don't forget though that many of these techie young people, fresh from school and paid far more than they arguably are worth (and sadly often with little appreciation of what many have had to do to struggle for years to earn far less while working harder), come to look for a house with pockets full of money and then exacerbate the problem. People selling property are going to take what the market will bear, and which those buyers are willing to pony up. Property values going up 50 or 75% is purely artificial and only driven by the willing buyer. A dumpy old house "worth" half again as much as it was the year before is not intrinsic value, it's a mirage, albeit one that is in real dollars that shuts out more and more people.
3
It's not wise to radically alter the density, skyline, and ethos of your home in the face of every single bubble that pops up. The pressure from this one is so intense that it's easy to forget that it has only really been in full effect since about 2011, when a recession weary community of creative people got wind of improvements and sent the local economy screaming skyward like a rocket. I've lived in the city a while and can recall a post dot-com era in which landlords were offering "first month free" incentives to prospective renters to try and entice them into renting from them. So, the pendulum always swings and I prefer to think in the long-term rather than catering to the immediate housing needs of 22 year olds who showed up here a year ago to ride the bubble and are looking aghast at how expensive it is here. That's why I am not 100% in favor of carte blanche housing development.
And on a related note, California, as a whole, owes many of its water problems, crowding, traffic, and air quality issues to reckless development that started roughly in the middle of the 20 century. The land, environment, and infrastructure couldn't handle it. Adding housing has consequences just as much as not doing so.
And on a related note, California, as a whole, owes many of its water problems, crowding, traffic, and air quality issues to reckless development that started roughly in the middle of the 20 century. The land, environment, and infrastructure couldn't handle it. Adding housing has consequences just as much as not doing so.
3
The only problem is that many units in those high rises will sell and then sit vacant, as the only people that can afford them are wealthy foreign investors who need someplace to stash their cash. Real estate has become a huge money laundering scheme that is completely disconnected from the fact that people need shelter.
4
As a working artist whose studio was pushed from one neighborhood to another since 1976 as waves of gentrification swept across the City, I can only say I'm glad I left. The "dot-com" boom of the late 90's was the last straw, when our landlord, to whom we never missed a rent payment in 18 years, quadrupled our rent. I still make my art, but in a quiet small town 20 miles away on the cold and foggy coastside, whose weather allows my wife and I to make our home with our modest incomes. The city I loved is no longer extant and I grieve its passing, knowing that what has been lost will not return. Imagine a city of 850,000 tech millionaires - what could be more tragic?
266
850,000 millionares would not be tragic. What is tragic though is 850,000 non millionaires trying to live in a city that only allows someone with that salary to live there.
1
What could be more tragic? How about being Detroit where they are demolishing blocks of abandoned homes and the city's population is a fraction of what it once was with a tax base that can't pay police. That would be more tragic than a city attracting too many rich people.
2
blame landlords, not techies.
I don't know if there will be a bubble burst, but I am curious to see what will happen to the tech workers themselves in 10-15 years. Not all tech workers make great salaries. Many are young, so don't mind living with tons of roommates. I know a few who have parents helping them pay rent.
But what will happen when they hit their late 30's and 40's, and want to start a family? Will they remain in SF then? The tech industry is notoriously ageist, so will they even have jobs, or be edged out by younger worker bees? Only time will tell.
But what will happen when they hit their late 30's and 40's, and want to start a family? Will they remain in SF then? The tech industry is notoriously ageist, so will they even have jobs, or be edged out by younger worker bees? Only time will tell.
29
I always wondered what it was like to be right out of ivy league and making $150K right out of college at google or apple, etc. And then where do you go from there? you are now surrounded by hundreds if not thousands of competitors who are making that much. How much upward mobility is there in these tech companies when you start so high because you are "top talent" (whatever that means)? Someone should write an article about being 30, having made over a million dollars in salary and bonus in tech, and blown it all and unemployed.
1
The Mayor didn't have time to be interviewed? Hah!
The Mayor has checked out since his reelection. He won't speak publicly because he fears protesters. No guts at all.
The deficit? Weird as the City is bringing in more money than ever before, with property turning over and being reassessed to market rates.
But there are unfunded pensions that are coming due now; the Mayor, aong with political establishment, blocked real reforms a few years ago with a phony reform package that they lied about to the public. The Mayor's demand that departments cut budgets was based on the increased pension costs.
Cuts in City services ftom 2009-10 have not been restored, yet we spend so much on homeless services because we welcome the homeless from anywhere (In the last 10-15 years, we have put 20,000 homeless into supportive housing, yet the homeless population remains around 6,000 to 7,000). Any we build "affordable housing" that is open to non-San Francisco residents and wonder why the housing shortage never ends.
The Mayor has checked out since his reelection. He won't speak publicly because he fears protesters. No guts at all.
The deficit? Weird as the City is bringing in more money than ever before, with property turning over and being reassessed to market rates.
But there are unfunded pensions that are coming due now; the Mayor, aong with political establishment, blocked real reforms a few years ago with a phony reform package that they lied about to the public. The Mayor's demand that departments cut budgets was based on the increased pension costs.
Cuts in City services ftom 2009-10 have not been restored, yet we spend so much on homeless services because we welcome the homeless from anywhere (In the last 10-15 years, we have put 20,000 homeless into supportive housing, yet the homeless population remains around 6,000 to 7,000). Any we build "affordable housing" that is open to non-San Francisco residents and wonder why the housing shortage never ends.
9
Interesting that Mayor Lee is portrayed as the establishment villain by enlightened white liberals here. He is only the first Asian (Chinese) American ever to be Mayor of San Francisco, despite all the generations of poor and working class Asians who did the heavy lifting over the years. According to his bio, Lee's own parents were a restaurant cook father -- who died young -- and a mom who worked as a waitress and seamstress. Sort of odd to see crunchy white liberals who grew up in possession-laden families, to lecture Mr. Lee about being a lap dog to the "1 per centers."
4
That's because he IS a lap dog to the 1 percenters. He's not helping the poor and working class Asians. There entire families in Chinatown from Grandmas to newborns living in a single room. They're not his priority. He was never supposed to be mayor either, just an interim caretaker because Newsom bailed early. He promised not to run.
His ideas were maybe well intentioned: bring business into the city, and not realizing it would take off as quickly as it did. But step 1 should have been asking, if we bring these companies into the city, where are their hundreds or thousands of employees going to live?
Now look what we're dealing with. Someone here said the streets are "an open air insane asylum", that's pretty accurate. Lunatics on Market street screaming and scratching themselves. Maseratis blasting through the neighborhood with their exhausts crackling, passing by rows of tents pitched on the sidewalk, people wandering around glued to their phones even while they cross the street, apartments that were overpriced at 750K just three years ago going for 1.5 million.
Growth is a good thing, even fast growth, but it has to be at a pace that the entire organism can sustain. When something grows unnaturally fast out of proportion to its environment, it's usually called cancer.
His ideas were maybe well intentioned: bring business into the city, and not realizing it would take off as quickly as it did. But step 1 should have been asking, if we bring these companies into the city, where are their hundreds or thousands of employees going to live?
Now look what we're dealing with. Someone here said the streets are "an open air insane asylum", that's pretty accurate. Lunatics on Market street screaming and scratching themselves. Maseratis blasting through the neighborhood with their exhausts crackling, passing by rows of tents pitched on the sidewalk, people wandering around glued to their phones even while they cross the street, apartments that were overpriced at 750K just three years ago going for 1.5 million.
Growth is a good thing, even fast growth, but it has to be at a pace that the entire organism can sustain. When something grows unnaturally fast out of proportion to its environment, it's usually called cancer.
I left the city proper because bringing my toddler children anywhere public was typically met with an undeniable vibe of go elsewhere. Looks and feels like that vibe is now the norm: a sense of entitlement rounds out the experience. The bland beige of a work force trapped in traffic makes me miss The City even less.
What I don't understand about this is that these people work in an industry that is all about moving electrons around the world. So why do they feel a compulsion to all live together in one physical space. Their "products" are IP which can be made, modified and used anywhere on the planet. Yet, like lemmings, they all have to be in the SF bay? Granted, SF is a beautiful city but the USA has a lot of beautiful areas. The same phenomenon is true around Boston for the biotechs. I just don't get it. If I were lucky enough to run a high tech company I think I would build it in Vermont.
12
abbott, in most businesses you just have to be there. WHat you write is true of many business including publishing, the movie business, finance as well as high tech. Yet employment in these fields is very concentrated. There is a reason for this.
1
Gosh, could it be that stuffing ever more people in to the same area, be it San Fran, California, the u.s. or this planet might not be a great idea?! The nyts has been telling us that if we don't want to be xenophobic racists we need to let everybody in who wants to come here. Sure, it's worse with something like the tech companies sucking people in to limited metro areas, but the idea applies everywhere. The world is not going to support unlimited growth. Where and why this idea gained traction is a mystery to every one but
liberal news people, real estate agents and politicians.
Want your town, country, planet to remain livable? Call a halt to all but the minimum amount of immigration. Stop all support for more than 2 children. It's all the rage to only look one quarter ahead for the next financial sheet, but in the end you can't drink or breath profits. We have to come to grips with the notion of sustainability or nature will do it for us.
liberal news people, real estate agents and politicians.
Want your town, country, planet to remain livable? Call a halt to all but the minimum amount of immigration. Stop all support for more than 2 children. It's all the rage to only look one quarter ahead for the next financial sheet, but in the end you can't drink or breath profits. We have to come to grips with the notion of sustainability or nature will do it for us.
6
I drove to CA from the Midwest in 1960 and lived in a charming cottage behind a big house in Palo Alto, around the corner from the Hewlett family (of build-it-in-a garage fame). With my teacher's salary I was later able to live in SF rental apts. during the 70's, and in 1980 I moved into an affordable house in San Carlos, then a very sleepy little town. I remember a burgeoning SF in the 60's when single school teachers like me and single engineers, at Fairchild and other early tech firms all the way to Sacramento, filled the streets of North Beach (a very safe place then) every weekend. Since then? I've seen another young-person influx to my favorite city and the region. The young and prosperous are much more aggressive, confident, and rich than those earlier engineers who arrived in the 60's. And I think not so socially mature or openminded, given the nature of their education and jobs, perhaps. There have been news reports about the lack of social skills, even good eating habits, among a large number of these highly successful workers. What is happening to San Francisco is sad, I think. And I have to keep reminding myself that it's defined by a much larger picture. Will we have more Hong Kongs in the future? Perhaps, so. The important thing is that we try to look in the mirror more often than we stare at our smart phone.
15
Reporter Streitfeld: Kindly explain how Airbnb hurts the non-wealthy local residents of a city? By letting middle class folks earn a little extra money to pay expenses? (No wealthy person would let strangers stay in their house.) If a politician, like Mr. Peskin, is fighting Airbnb, it just may be that he's doing a favor for the only people hurt by Airbnb: the hotel industry.
20
@ Peter Blau
Bravo for your question to Mr Streitfeld. You answered it yourself, but only in part. "Airbnb lets middle class folks earn a little extra money to pay expenses" True. But this end is achieved by many not just by renting out a spare bedroom from time to time. Current Airbnb law has opened up to short-term rental many small "in law" apartments in SF. Before Airbnb, many people kept such apartments off the market. Why? What sane person not truly desperate for the additional income would rent or lease a small apartment in his/her own home and become subject to the insanity of rent control in SF? Anyone can stake a claim in your home after 30 days, and then, as a private person, not a real estate tycoon, you become responsible for subsidizing the housing of a person who, if truly needing subsidization, should be supported by (inadequate) property taxes (Thanks, Prop 13) and/or more sensible housing laws -- not by small real estate owners. To really get rid of a bad renter, or to regain possession of an apartment in a small two or three unit building for your own use, or use of a family member, you might end up paying as much as $100,000 to "relocate" the tenant. (There's lots more, but just skip to the eviction process should you rent to a bad apple, and you'll learn why many many small apartments in private houses are permanently off the regular rental market https://www.sftu.org/eviction/)
End of Part I
Bravo for your question to Mr Streitfeld. You answered it yourself, but only in part. "Airbnb lets middle class folks earn a little extra money to pay expenses" True. But this end is achieved by many not just by renting out a spare bedroom from time to time. Current Airbnb law has opened up to short-term rental many small "in law" apartments in SF. Before Airbnb, many people kept such apartments off the market. Why? What sane person not truly desperate for the additional income would rent or lease a small apartment in his/her own home and become subject to the insanity of rent control in SF? Anyone can stake a claim in your home after 30 days, and then, as a private person, not a real estate tycoon, you become responsible for subsidizing the housing of a person who, if truly needing subsidization, should be supported by (inadequate) property taxes (Thanks, Prop 13) and/or more sensible housing laws -- not by small real estate owners. To really get rid of a bad renter, or to regain possession of an apartment in a small two or three unit building for your own use, or use of a family member, you might end up paying as much as $100,000 to "relocate" the tenant. (There's lots more, but just skip to the eviction process should you rent to a bad apple, and you'll learn why many many small apartments in private houses are permanently off the regular rental market https://www.sftu.org/eviction/)
End of Part I
2
@Peter Blau Part II of lengthy reply
The elephant in the room here is perhaps not so much the glut of techies with poor social skills (most of whom will NOT change or improve the world with the "killer app" they are working on), but a national chasm of inequality between the rich and poor which is blatantly clear in SF, a city with no land to expand on; a failure of community planning for adequate and affordable housing to maintain the vibrant diversity SF likes to lay claim to; poor schools which drive out the middle class at least as fast as the cost of housing; low salaries for teachers and other middle class people who work here; and a failure to recognize that while housing is a universal right, one doesn't have a right to live where one cannot afford to live, no matter what the SF Tenants Union says about it.
If San Francisco wants to keep its artists and writers and chefs and latter-day bohemians and other creators (admittedly more fun than nerdy techies, the rank and file of whom are not terribly interesting ), then it must decide how it can afford to subsidize their housing or create housing they can afford. Prop 13 is not going to be repealed, so the powers that be must find some other way to keep them here, along with our teachers and police officers and firefighters and nurses and restaurant workers and middle class families with children.
As for the homeless problem -- you probably need to write about drug addiction and mental illness, not Google buses.
The elephant in the room here is perhaps not so much the glut of techies with poor social skills (most of whom will NOT change or improve the world with the "killer app" they are working on), but a national chasm of inequality between the rich and poor which is blatantly clear in SF, a city with no land to expand on; a failure of community planning for adequate and affordable housing to maintain the vibrant diversity SF likes to lay claim to; poor schools which drive out the middle class at least as fast as the cost of housing; low salaries for teachers and other middle class people who work here; and a failure to recognize that while housing is a universal right, one doesn't have a right to live where one cannot afford to live, no matter what the SF Tenants Union says about it.
If San Francisco wants to keep its artists and writers and chefs and latter-day bohemians and other creators (admittedly more fun than nerdy techies, the rank and file of whom are not terribly interesting ), then it must decide how it can afford to subsidize their housing or create housing they can afford. Prop 13 is not going to be repealed, so the powers that be must find some other way to keep them here, along with our teachers and police officers and firefighters and nurses and restaurant workers and middle class families with children.
As for the homeless problem -- you probably need to write about drug addiction and mental illness, not Google buses.
1
I think much of what you say is reasonable, except the suggestion of moral superiority in "artists and writers and chefs and latter-day bohemians and other creators" over tech workers. Both groups tend to come from educated, ambitious middle class families, and both can be accused (often unfairly) of having priced out the poor.
For a spoof on this kind of thinking, please be sure to see the Communist Writers Scene in "Hail Caesar," where the class struggle is extolled in a dramatic oceanfront living room in Malibu, while a working class maid drones back and forth with the vacuum, cleaning their carpets for them.
For a spoof on this kind of thinking, please be sure to see the Communist Writers Scene in "Hail Caesar," where the class struggle is extolled in a dramatic oceanfront living room in Malibu, while a working class maid drones back and forth with the vacuum, cleaning their carpets for them.
The most Democratic city in America and Ground Zero for the American class war. Pay attention.
6
yes, there is no class warfare in Republican cities like Houston and Dallas.
Maybe not. There's also Detroit. Great things have been happening since the days of the Model Cities program.
1
Look at the great Democrat cities of Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, etc...
2
More and more, I find myself wondering what happened to a favorite small business or restaurant, playing the 'what used to be there?' game when I see a fancy new restaurant or boutique on a familiar street, wondering how many condos will replace a boarded up building or lot that had been an informal park/pumpkin patch/christmas tree lot. Every house that is sold soon sports sconce lighting, fancy house numbers and a shiny new expensive car out front.
The City eliminates parking spaces for no very good reason and raises parking fines willy-nilly but seems not to spend that money on transit or filling potholes, or even helping poor people. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that SF city government does well, or even does poorly but without corruption.
The only good (?) thing is that the weather in my formerly fogbound neighborhood has become pleasant and mild thanks, apparently, to global warming. Tomatoes now grow in my yard, miner's lettuce no longer appears in the early spring. One wonders where so many of the birds and bees have gone. Maybe they've gone to Oregon or Washington or Berkeley as most of my friends have. I suppose I'll follow soon.
The City eliminates parking spaces for no very good reason and raises parking fines willy-nilly but seems not to spend that money on transit or filling potholes, or even helping poor people. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that SF city government does well, or even does poorly but without corruption.
The only good (?) thing is that the weather in my formerly fogbound neighborhood has become pleasant and mild thanks, apparently, to global warming. Tomatoes now grow in my yard, miner's lettuce no longer appears in the early spring. One wonders where so many of the birds and bees have gone. Maybe they've gone to Oregon or Washington or Berkeley as most of my friends have. I suppose I'll follow soon.
7
As a San Francisco native who has lived in the Bay Area my whole life, I can state unequivocally that income inequality is exemplified here. San Francisco was once an affordable city where even the average worker bee could live in a nice apartment, and have money left over. Now it's a city for the 1%, and those of us who rent really do live in fear of losing our housing. We live 10 miles north of the city, where there is no rent control, but so far the management has been fair to us. One never knows when that could change. It's a scary way to live in one's 60's with serious disability.
I certainly wish no ill upon the tech industry and don't know what the solution to this disparity would be. I hope it eventually evens out, but since this really is one of the most beautiful, most desirable places in the country to live, it may be too late.
I certainly wish no ill upon the tech industry and don't know what the solution to this disparity would be. I hope it eventually evens out, but since this really is one of the most beautiful, most desirable places in the country to live, it may be too late.
111
"I can state unequivocally that income inequality is exemplified here. San Francisco was once an affordable city where even the average worker bee could live in a nice apartment, and have money left over. "
at one time that could even be said of NY, LA, Boston and DC. Now to live the middle class life there you need a min. household income of at least $150,000. The big cities have really not been good for the middle class.
at one time that could even be said of NY, LA, Boston and DC. Now to live the middle class life there you need a min. household income of at least $150,000. The big cities have really not been good for the middle class.
1
Just when was it "affordable"? My late husband lived there in the 1970's and had a hard time finding an affordable apt while teaching at Lick Wilmerding School. In the early 80's, now married to me, a job offer there had to be turned down as we would have had to live over an hour's commute in a very tiny house.
3
We would welcome these tech people on Long Island, where the housing prices are already high, the taxes are high, the public transport is terrible, you have to drive everywhere - hey, they would feel right at home! And we cannot wait until after the Democrat Convention, when the Sanders trolls will stop injecting their venom into every comment board. We are not going to vote for him under any circumstance, now please stop it!
3
"We" who? I think you get exactly one vote like everybody else.
It really doesn't matter if a place is desirable if you can't afford to enjoy what it has to offer. Part of the problem is that American cities are typically not very nice in the center. Many young people today want an urban lifestyle but find that most cities have been hollowed out and look like they were bombed in a war and never rebuilt. So it's really about urban areas in America that are livable being in very short supply. The best urban areas are the ones that were never really abandoned such as San Francisco, Seattle, New York, Boston and Washington. Young people who are priced-out of these places will certainly locate in what's left of other cities and work to bring them back and make them livable.
3
It's too bad that increasingly more citizens, businesses and cities do not care about their neighbors and ALL people of the city. Sure, places change, but cities like SF are not evolving. The "movement" these days in SF is the "it's all about me and MY money" and unfortunately, businesses like Airbnb contribute to that.
OH YAY C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M !!!
OH YAY C-A-P-I-T-A-L-I-S-M !!!
2
So you're going to blame young people who go to college, get a job, and move to a city, and work 50-60 hours a week? Patently absurd. As for the people for whom a tech bust can't come fast enough, examine your 401(k)s and 503(b)s closely and see just how many companies your economic future is invested in have economic roots in Silicon Valley and the tech boom. A tech bust would hurt you, too.
When you listen to the people of San Francisco talk, you hear a lot about their right to live there. The "me me me" entitlement is explicit.
When you listen to the people of San Francisco talk, you hear a lot about their right to live there. The "me me me" entitlement is explicit.
4
yes, it is as if these people have never given a thought to moving. If you are a teacher, other middle class worker one can live so much better just about anywhere else than SF. ALl they have to do is move!
1
Moving to an affordable area is hard, but so is struggling in one of the most expensive cities in the world.
1
While driving for Lyft last week, I had a passenger who worked for a tech company here in Austin (Retail Me Not) tell me that she just rented a 1 bedroom apartment for $1,550 per month which she characterized as "not bad."
I was so flabbergasted I almost spit up the water I was drinking at the time! The San Francisco tech effect is spreading to other cities like a disease.
I've had Austin residents who were living here 8-10 years ago tell me that you used to be able to rent a 2 bedroom apartment for around $800 per month. Now $1,550 for a one bed is considered reasonable.
I was so flabbergasted I almost spit up the water I was drinking at the time! The San Francisco tech effect is spreading to other cities like a disease.
I've had Austin residents who were living here 8-10 years ago tell me that you used to be able to rent a 2 bedroom apartment for around $800 per month. Now $1,550 for a one bed is considered reasonable.
7
It's happened in Atlanta too.
2
this has been happening in all large US cities. Its like you need a household income of over $100,000 just to afford basic housing.
1
Housing is being swept up at an impossible rate by corporate investors, not just in SF but the East Bay as well. Many foreign investors view the SF Bay Area as an investment. There is no way for local citizens to compete with that scale. It is completely mercenary, like the tech companies themselves. All of this and the self-aggrandizing culture of the tech world has destroyed the very thing that everyone loved about SF.
13
The same thing has happened on a smaller scale to small, indie/hip cities and towns: Santa Fe, Sedona, Boulder. The cool places get ruined by too much money and the original inhabitants have to leave. Sad.
7
It is simplistic and lazt to blame this situation on tech workers alone. Justin Keller's statements are disgusting but this article is presenting that as the sole voice representative of all tech workers. The real problem is that San Francisco has repeatedly failed to amend its zoning laws to improve public transit and amend its zoning laws to enable high-density housing. High real estate and rental prices are a result of archaic zoning rules that benefit incumbent landlords with little incentive to change. A truly progressive city would work to increase density and make itself more walkable and transit- friendly. This approach has the added benefit of keeping prices stable and also reducing carbon footprints. Blaming it on tech is a lazy way to find scapegoats. Here in Seattle, we've seen a similar debate - but the city responded with a transport levy (to pay for transit expansion and income-based travel subsidies), high-density zoning rules (with specific percentages for low-income housing), a $15 minimum wage and housing vouchers for vulnerable population segments. While not perfect, it is a template that SFO, Portland and other cities could examine closely. Heavy on one-sided anecdotes, this piece is just some more lazy reporting from someone with an obvious anti-tech slant who has also repeatedly been called out by the NYT's public editor in the past.
4
Surprised they printed this! The editors are usually really effective at spiking anything that smacks of criticism of a NY Times journalist.
4
Almost all the the things you mentioned are already done or in the planning process. It doesn't stop people from complaining just like they do in "wait for it" Seattle...
Having lived in San Francisco for 25 years I'll add my voice to the chorus by saying I cannot wait until the bottom falls out of the tech sector and San Francisco returns to a state of social and economic stasis. The influx of the IT hordes are slowly sucking the soul out of a city that once was symbol of tolerance, progressiveness, and refuge. These days it festers with young, entitled, over-paid brats who see themselves as worthy designates to a city that somehow owes them without any consideration of any social or cultural reciprocity. In short, they represent social Darwinism at its very worst.
16
It may sort itself out in a few years, when everyone realizes they can make do with the"apps" they already have, the phone they already have, and so on.
All the endless upgrades and "improvements" just give the programmers something to do; there is no actual demand for them. It's just another gold rush. They always peter out.
All the endless upgrades and "improvements" just give the programmers something to do; there is no actual demand for them. It's just another gold rush. They always peter out.
12
San Francisco is not what it used to be. That is for sure. My "used to" was the 60's and 70's even if the extremes made me wince. I am sure there are lots of reasons for avoiding going there now, including the swarms of techies trying to invent the next useless digital whatever. If you are over 30 you will feel old (except at the symphony) even if you can find a parking place. People in the Cafe's are glued to their screens and not many of them look like poets, I plan my few visits, like to the DeYoung Museum like military missions. Get in at a hour of least resistance, establish a forward position in Golden Gate Park, don't take prisoners (they will bore you to death) retreat before 3PM and have dinner in Marin or Berkeley on the way home.
8
Mr. Keller, who are you - Marie Antoinette reincarnated?
Sounds to me like you could benefit by seeing -- and particularly by working on behalf of -- more of the homeless and the "riff-raff," not less.
But for the grace of God -- and you should count what appear to be your many blessings -- go you.
A little dose of reality would do you good
I come from a middle-class and well educated family. Back in the 70s, when we were in college, my parents made us get summer jobs in local factories. Can't say I've ever heard of other parents doing that. They didn't do it because they were gushy liberals, either. They wanted to build character - humility, gratitude and empathy come to mind. They were lessons in life that I have never forgotten, nor could I have learned anywhere else in quite that way.
Forty+ years later, I still remember many of my co-workers fondly, and wonder how they have fared. I'm guessing not so well.
Those were lessons hard learned, and they have become more and more valuable with each succeeding year. My blessing was having parents to whom character mattered a great deal. They would have whipped my hide if they'd ever heard me utter your words.
Sounds to me like you could benefit by seeing -- and particularly by working on behalf of -- more of the homeless and the "riff-raff," not less.
But for the grace of God -- and you should count what appear to be your many blessings -- go you.
A little dose of reality would do you good
I come from a middle-class and well educated family. Back in the 70s, when we were in college, my parents made us get summer jobs in local factories. Can't say I've ever heard of other parents doing that. They didn't do it because they were gushy liberals, either. They wanted to build character - humility, gratitude and empathy come to mind. They were lessons in life that I have never forgotten, nor could I have learned anywhere else in quite that way.
Forty+ years later, I still remember many of my co-workers fondly, and wonder how they have fared. I'm guessing not so well.
Those were lessons hard learned, and they have become more and more valuable with each succeeding year. My blessing was having parents to whom character mattered a great deal. They would have whipped my hide if they'd ever heard me utter your words.
5
Agree with others that there are no easy answers to the very real problems that this article spotlights.
At core, it's a supply and demand issue -- too many people want to live in San Francisco, which raises costs, which squeezes out those with less financial resources. So we've gotten to a point where teachers, public employees and service professionals can't live where they work. This isn't unique to San Francisco, of course, but the rate at which the income gap is increasing is.
Other than the bubble bursting, a massive increase in the affordable housing supply or a dramatic increase in public wages -- none of these seem terribly likely, BTW -- this problem simply won't be solved.
And so SF will continue on its trajectory: a hub of (i) smart-but-not-terribly-interesting-or-diverse people creating curious-but-not-terribly-useful technology things and (ii) people living on the streets (the vast majority of whom appear to suffer from mental illness, drug addiction or both). The city will continue to have plenty of good restaurants, well-funded arts institutions and social service providers, but middle class, artistic types and families will live elsewhere.
At core, it's a supply and demand issue -- too many people want to live in San Francisco, which raises costs, which squeezes out those with less financial resources. So we've gotten to a point where teachers, public employees and service professionals can't live where they work. This isn't unique to San Francisco, of course, but the rate at which the income gap is increasing is.
Other than the bubble bursting, a massive increase in the affordable housing supply or a dramatic increase in public wages -- none of these seem terribly likely, BTW -- this problem simply won't be solved.
And so SF will continue on its trajectory: a hub of (i) smart-but-not-terribly-interesting-or-diverse people creating curious-but-not-terribly-useful technology things and (ii) people living on the streets (the vast majority of whom appear to suffer from mental illness, drug addiction or both). The city will continue to have plenty of good restaurants, well-funded arts institutions and social service providers, but middle class, artistic types and families will live elsewhere.
4
Do ask yourself - who exactly will be working in alll those good restaurants, art institutions and providers....not the millienials making silly apps. some of workers are living on the street because there is no where else to live. Do not be so glib as to say everyone who is living on the street basically is there as some kind of lifestyle choice.
1
I always have a hearty chuckle at the fuming leftists in this article and on this board who decry people who "have". Folks, not everyone is born into a permanent caste or class. Many (most?) of those who are successful in SF's tech economy did not start our in a "privileged" position. Case in point, those who have emigrated from India. Also, some here actually want the state to seize mark Zuckerberg's assets and to "redistribute" it. As if that would ever actually make you happy.
3
What's your actual point here? That the most successful earned it totally from scratch? Yes they are wildly successful here but don't assume that privileged lives were unknown to them before. Many of the very successful are culled from ranks already narrowed back home by elaborate hierarchies that would make our heads spin. And let's not pretend that there aren't SERIOUS problems among the MILLIONS that these individual left behind. Not to suggest that they are undeserving of their individual success and responsible for the collective, but context is very important. Ultimately I understand this, really I do: the Horatio Alger story plays so much better in the press/on the comment board, etc.
4
alex,
many of those from India went to elite schools like MIT and CMU. Schools that charge $50,000 pr yr. How do you think they managed to afford these educations? Same for many of these high tech workers (but far from all).
many of those from India went to elite schools like MIT and CMU. Schools that charge $50,000 pr yr. How do you think they managed to afford these educations? Same for many of these high tech workers (but far from all).
It is simplistic to blame this situation on tech workers. San Francisco has repeatedly failed to amend its zoning laws to improve public transit and amend its zoning laws to enable high-density housing. High real estate and rental prices are a result of archaic zoning rules that benefit incumbent landlords with little incentive to change. A truly progressive city would work to increase density and make itself more walkable and transit- friendly. This approach has the added benefit of keeping prices stable and also reducing carbon footprints. Blaming it on tech is a lazy way to find scapegoats. Here in Seattle, we've seen a similar debate - but the city responded with a transport levy (to pay for transit expansion and income-based travel subsidies), high-density zoning rules (with specific percentages for low-income housing), a $15 minimum wage and housing vouchers for vulnerable population segments. While not perfect, it is a template that SFO, Portland and other cities could examine closely. Heavy on one-sided anecdotes, this piece is just some more lazy reporting from someone with an obvious anti-tech slant who has also repeatedly been called out by the NYT's public editor in the past.
My impression of SF is that along with its beauty, uniqueness and culture has always had an undercurrent of anger, indignation, bitterness and fury at what are really the normal conditions of any American city: crowded roads, underprivileged people, unequal situations in life, housing, jobs, education. Maybe it should be applauded for caring enough to bemoan that life is unfair and sometimes miserably contrasting between privilege and poverty.
SF is really a European city desirous of having a good way of life for everyone, but stuck inside a nation whose policies favor the extremely wealthy over the good of all.
SF is really a European city desirous of having a good way of life for everyone, but stuck inside a nation whose policies favor the extremely wealthy over the good of all.
259
@Harding Dawson
"SF is a really a European city" with the un-European characteristic of having streets overflowing with bums, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, winos, aggressive panhandlers, and street defecators.
We're still waiting for our Giuliani.
"SF is a really a European city" with the un-European characteristic of having streets overflowing with bums, the mentally ill, the drug addicted, winos, aggressive panhandlers, and street defecators.
We're still waiting for our Giuliani.
6
The gripe isn't necessarily about inequality, it's about inaccessibility. In other words, people aren't complaining that they can't afford to live in a Pac Heights mansion, they're complaining that they can't afford to live ANYWHERE. There's a major difference between the two.
3
European? Not a chance! A European city is Paris, where Uber was shown the door, with a kick in the butt on the way out, thank you but no thanks. It has nothing, and I mean that literally, nothing, in common with a European city. It has a lot more in common with Rwanda, having similar inequality of income.
Here's some solutions: Raise the minimum wage and public worker salaries, especially teachers, and raise taxes on the tech workers to pay for the public salary increases. And build more multi family housing to increase housing supply in the city. That should even things out a bit.
18
Easy to suggest, hard to actually do.
Teachers don't work 3 months a year and get 100% of holidays off. 1/2 days all the time. They get enough for what they do.
2
What if you can't build?
I just got back from a visit to see family in Seattle, and it's the same situation there. I think what you see in places like Seattle and Sam Francisco is what the future holds for New York if the affordable housing crisis isn't remedied. Fancy apartment buildings with "poor doors" or a certain number of affordable units aren't enough - there needs to be a moratorium on luxury housing construction in neighborhoods where it doesn't belong, period.
13
If we go back a mere 200 years we'll find that the only thing that belongs in Seattle's neighborhoods is big pine trees - should we demolish everything and replant? Resistance to change in our urban land scape brings nothing but problems. The issue is the exact opposite of what you are describing - San Francisco suffers from archaic zoning laws that prevent urban density. This is why units in run down duplexes in the mission cost so much. Seattle has done a bit better, but we still don't allow enough building. The easiest and most sustainable way to make housing cheaper is to provide more of it.
1
San Francisco is too big to be turned into the wasteland that Palo Alto has become. But the disease is creeping up the Peninsula. The middle class can no longer afford to live in Redwood City. The Peninsula not going to work if every worker who makes less than 50k has to commute in from the East Bay.
11
Amen. The pride San Franciscans once had on a diverse population sharing common ground is rapidly eroding. We don't shop in the same stores, eat in the same restaurants, attend the same events, go to the same schools or even travel in the same lanes. Church may be the last refuge of common ground, and even there the segregation has become evident.
6
It's looking more and more like Margaret Atwood's Flood series. Lush corporate compounds sheltering the technocracy, surrounded by teeming Pleblands where the burger flippers and strippers struggle to survive.
@Patricia
Have you ever noticed how similar to Palo Alto Pasadena is?
Have you ever noticed how similar to Palo Alto Pasadena is?
Sigh. I lived as a renter in San Francisco for 20 years, but once my wife and I decided to have kids and buy a house, we had to leave – we just couldn’t afford the 1 million dollar fixer-uppers in our neighborhood (Noe Valley/Mission area). So, 4 years ago, we moved to the Triangle in North Carolina.
My mortgage is now half of what a typical one-bedroom rents for in San Francisco, and my salary, even with a downward cost of living adjustment, goes so much further. Basically I can afford to live like an adult in NC, whereas in SF my life was almost like an extended adolescence – economically forced to live like a 20-something, sharing a flat with roommates, until I was almost 40.
BUT… I miss SF terribly – its weather, food, walk-ability, beautiful geography, open-minded people -- even the annoying techies. I just couldn’t afford to have a family there – not without great financial sacrifice.
I don’t blame the techies – they’re young and just going where the cool jobs and places to live are. But make no mistake, economic dislocation sucks. But it’s driven by huge economic and social forces that no city can really control – I don’t see any easy answers.
My mortgage is now half of what a typical one-bedroom rents for in San Francisco, and my salary, even with a downward cost of living adjustment, goes so much further. Basically I can afford to live like an adult in NC, whereas in SF my life was almost like an extended adolescence – economically forced to live like a 20-something, sharing a flat with roommates, until I was almost 40.
BUT… I miss SF terribly – its weather, food, walk-ability, beautiful geography, open-minded people -- even the annoying techies. I just couldn’t afford to have a family there – not without great financial sacrifice.
I don’t blame the techies – they’re young and just going where the cool jobs and places to live are. But make no mistake, economic dislocation sucks. But it’s driven by huge economic and social forces that no city can really control – I don’t see any easy answers.
63
We live on the edge of Noe/Mission and cram our two toddlers into a 2-bedroom where we can't all sit at the dinner table together. If our landlord ever decided to rent, that would be it for us in the city. Every time I think about this place, I get depressed. San Francisco is such a beautiful city, but the culture is being gutted and the absurd cost of living makes everyone grim and so focused on money.
6
You made a good decision! I'm one of the lucky ones- I could not afford to live in the bay area if my SO wasn't in tech. However, I also know from experience that there are a lot of great places to live that aren't San Francisco or even on the bart line (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh [PA], Columbus, and I hear great things about Boston too). I know that I definitely would have moved had I not met my SO four years ago, in fact I was very much planning to do so.
Yeah, it sucks to be displaced for economic reasons but I would rather live my life in comfort somewhere else rather than struggle in SF for the principle of it.
Yeah, it sucks to be displaced for economic reasons but I would rather live my life in comfort somewhere else rather than struggle in SF for the principle of it.
Financially he actually made a horrible decision. He should of given up his prime location in the city for a lessor location. If he bought in Central Sunset or Bernal Heights his house would be worth close to double what he would have paid for it.
We're having a tech boom in Seattle too. Our rents are mostly unaffordable to the teachers, firefighters, etc. who work in the city, and many elderly residents and families are being displaced. Meanwhile, our roads are clogged. Commute times just keep going up. Housing density has increased, and megamansions are more common in the neighborhood I have lived in for about 25 years. Change is always inevitable, but this change is not being handled well.
I can't help but wonder why all that wealth - corporate and employee - doesn't come closer to making affordable housing more available and keeping the infrastructure up with the increased demands placed upon it.
I can't help but wonder why all that wealth - corporate and employee - doesn't come closer to making affordable housing more available and keeping the infrastructure up with the increased demands placed upon it.
10
I lived in Seattle about 30 years ago (not Mark). It was bad then, especially traffic. The first thing I did was look for the commuter train, but all they had was that ridiculous monorail and an awful bus system. Homeless people were everywhere downtown and crime, especially rape, was really bad. As a woman it was a dangerous situation. I'm not surprised things have not improved much, you need to be a forward thinker to fix things like infrastructure and I didn't see a lot of that when I lived there. Just a lot of people clapping themselves on the back telling everyone how wonderful it was to live there. Do they still call it the 'emerald city'?
1
Because all that wealth is based on relatively un-taxed economies of scale favoring creator-investors and fluid capital. Housing is a sink for investment at this level, and housing for employees an even greater hole. These are not industries with any interest in building real-property based civics or community, much less public infrastructure.
Because of Big Government rent controls, there is no profit in affordable multi family housing. If there no profit to be made, no one will build it. Will you work for free? Neither will developers
1
Why not tax the tech companies highly? If they prefer Palo Alto as a result, let them go. Why should Google etc have buses when the public transit sucks? Government should be of the people by the people and for the people. Corporations are not people.
9
Google is paying for its own busses. Should you not be allowed to own a car if your neighbor cannot afford one?
1
The public transit will get worse as Uber and Lyft erode them. Take heart, however, and I hope you've bought property in Fresno -- the bullet train is coming soon to express valley workers out to utopia. Buy now!
1
Yes they are - the Supreme Court said so....
I lived in San Francisco for 12 years, went to graduate school there and still have my best friends there. But these days I can barely stand to visit. Much the same thing has happened in NYC, only here people are waiting for the real estate, Wall St., tech, tourist and goodness knows how many other bubbles to burst. Unfortunately, I'm not certain the bursting of a couple of bubbles will change much; and think there's little chance we will see the old SF or the old NYC. The world has changed and I think each of us just needs to find the best way to adapt.
29
Brilliant post.
I adapted by realizing there were large sections of the US that I was going to be "locked out of" -- forever -- (barring a big Lotto win).
Believe me, it hurt when I was young. I was just like those young "techies" -- I wanted a fantastic career, and to live in a fun, hip city with other young professionals -- attend plays and go to concerts and art museums. I wanted the nice climate and beautiful scenery and the job opportunities.
BUT I COULD NOT AFFORD IT. The good thing is that I figured it out by my mid-20s, so I could concentrate on what I COULD afford -- which was a house in a modest Midwestern suburb. Now that house is paid off, and I have some security for my old age -- and thank god, because I sure don't have a pension or anything but my own hard-earned savings.
People who insisted on apartments in big fancy cities, are often at retirement age displaced -- with no equity or assets. Their only hope is if they have "rent control" but not everyone is lucky enough to have this.
Believe me, it hurt when I was young. I was just like those young "techies" -- I wanted a fantastic career, and to live in a fun, hip city with other young professionals -- attend plays and go to concerts and art museums. I wanted the nice climate and beautiful scenery and the job opportunities.
BUT I COULD NOT AFFORD IT. The good thing is that I figured it out by my mid-20s, so I could concentrate on what I COULD afford -- which was a house in a modest Midwestern suburb. Now that house is paid off, and I have some security for my old age -- and thank god, because I sure don't have a pension or anything but my own hard-earned savings.
People who insisted on apartments in big fancy cities, are often at retirement age displaced -- with no equity or assets. Their only hope is if they have "rent control" but not everyone is lucky enough to have this.
Too bad, so sad. I've worked in Manhattan for long stretches of my life and never had the income to be able to afford to live in it. In recent years, the price of attending a museum or classical music performance is now out of my reach as well. Let's just call this what this really is...okay? Population explosion! Those with the most income get to do the most fun stuff and live in the best places. It's so simple!
17
We moved to the East Bay from SF last year. There were personal and practical reasons for the relocation, and it must be stated that home prices in SF have always been crazy high. Nevertheless, a feeling of being culturally displaced was one of the driving factors for the move, and looking back on our time in San Francisco, the place we left is clearly a dramatically different city than when we arrived 14 years ago. Cultural institutions, art galleries, accessible/interesting markets and restaurants and cinemas, surprising fringe communities...many are gone, or have relocated to approximately the same place we did (i.e. east of SF). What is left? A wretched and bereft "social-services" class (homeless, people living in SROs/flophouses) in stark juxtaposition to a wealthy, narcissistic strata of queue-waiting, boutique-going folks who come from privileged backgrounds and aren't terribly curious about the purpose or value of any socioeconomic paradigm other than their own. I guess what I'm saying is, SF has become kind of boring. I thought I'd be returning often for cultural events or enrichment but instead I'm discovering in the East Bay an exhilarating diversity of music/ideas/flavors that SF, through its own civic machinations, simply cannot match. Plus, everything in SF is now so crowded and pretentious and expensive, one dreads having to make the trip over the bridge. Will this transformation reverse? I hope so, but I doubt it. I'm happy to have gotten out.
57
r.e home prices in S.F. always having been "crazy high"...that is definitely false. I an a native and when I was growing up there in the '60's and '70's large parts of town were blue collar or middle class and renting or buying was an option if you had a decent job and middle income people were able to buy through the '80's. I left myself in the mid '90's partly in able to buy a house but renting was not a problem, was paying $700/mo for a decent apartment at the end.
4
No -- definitely NOT always.
The run-up started in the later 70s. I know, because I worked part-time after college classes at a real estate firm -- what an eye-opener! prior to that, I knew absolutely nothing about real estate. I would have people coming in, desperately for a house to buy or rent, and just sobbing when we told them that a ONE BEDROOM SHACK was (at that time) $100,000. And they would talk to us about how just a few years before, the same house was maybe $25,000 or less. Prices had gone up triple or four-fold in just maybe 2-3 years and it was devastating.
In the last 35 years, it has slowed and speeded up, but never really gone DOWN. Today, the price of a basic starter home in Northern California is roughly TEN TIMES what it is other parts of the country. In the most premium areas, it can be as much as FIFTEEN TIMES as expensive -- this basically locks almost everyone but the wealthier out of homeownership, and that has huge repercussions -- it means being at the mercy of landlords forever. It means never having a fixed payment. It means never gaining equity. It means never having a big asset for you when you retire -- or wish to leave something to your children. THAT IS HUGE. It is effectively stripping independence and wealth accumulation from millions and millions of middle and working class people in that area.
The run-up started in the later 70s. I know, because I worked part-time after college classes at a real estate firm -- what an eye-opener! prior to that, I knew absolutely nothing about real estate. I would have people coming in, desperately for a house to buy or rent, and just sobbing when we told them that a ONE BEDROOM SHACK was (at that time) $100,000. And they would talk to us about how just a few years before, the same house was maybe $25,000 or less. Prices had gone up triple or four-fold in just maybe 2-3 years and it was devastating.
In the last 35 years, it has slowed and speeded up, but never really gone DOWN. Today, the price of a basic starter home in Northern California is roughly TEN TIMES what it is other parts of the country. In the most premium areas, it can be as much as FIFTEEN TIMES as expensive -- this basically locks almost everyone but the wealthier out of homeownership, and that has huge repercussions -- it means being at the mercy of landlords forever. It means never having a fixed payment. It means never gaining equity. It means never having a big asset for you when you retire -- or wish to leave something to your children. THAT IS HUGE. It is effectively stripping independence and wealth accumulation from millions and millions of middle and working class people in that area.
Bernie to the rescue: free housing awarded by a government agency. Hey its a right, just like health care, for they are human's. All in San Francisco are clueless about capitalism, the goose that laid the golden egg. Sadly they do not understand that you do not manage 'success'.
5
Capitalism is not sacred. It's not a right. It's not naturally occurring event. It's just another flawed human system that is very broken.
5
All they know about capitalism is how to destroy it
3
My wife almost took job with Google and moved us to SF. So glad we stayed here in NY where it's cheap.
6
NY cheap? Since when?
My family has been in San Francisco from before the gold rush in 1849. This city has always had boom and busts that drove new waves of people into the City and out. The people who feel entitled to live in the city but are being forced out were part of a wave that force out other people years ago. Nobody is entitled to anything. You have to earn your place in the City. My family learned long ago the at the end of the day, this city will be a better place despite the loud complaints against change.
24
Is this the same message as Coolhunter's, above?
After my family has stayed in San Francisco 150+ years, we realize that change is a constant part of life in the City. Nobody is entitled to live in San Francisco. Favoring one group is discrimination against another. My grandparents loudly complained about the hippies moving into San Francisco displacing the hard working middle class/wwII generation. These are some of the people being displaced by the Hipsters now. This boom will fade soon and the City will retain the best parts of this the boom.
How ironic that the self-congratulatory arrogance of tech billionaires and so-called environmental awareness glossed over the simple truth that urban communities have an ecology which can be destructively 'disrupted.' Failure to build housing, contribute to public transportation, restrict Airbnb & Uber, acknowledge traffic & rent 'toxins - displacing society's crucial worlers for high rollers who invent silly apps and mistake this for genius...
Shame on Zuckerberg, et al.
Shame on Zuckerberg, et al.
19
I want my city back. The tech crash couldn't happen soon enough. Then I might be able to get a reservation at a restaurant, roads would be less crowded, artists would re-emerge, etc. Techies go back to the boring south bay and let's also get rid of Mayor Lee.
21
Your city???? The arrogance is appalling.
2
This City does not belong to you or anybody else. My family has been here over 150+ years and we could have said the same thing when yours moved here.
Life has a way of working itself out...in a few years many of these tech companies are going to experience a bursting bubble...and San Francisco may be saved the fate of New York City.
3
NY has a two hundred year advantage. Give it time. Growth will continue here for at least a couple more centuries.
Breaking news: Desirable places are expensive!
It’s absurd to paint the strong economic growth of the Bay Area so negative… if the local economy craters, your rent might go down a bit, but how does this help if you’re in danger of losing your job? Be careful what you wish for.
Every SF resident with an ounce of brain understands what is driving the issues around housing; just like in every other comparable place (NYC, London etc):
- desirable city attracts constant influx of new residents
- severe constrains on the housing supply side
- strong regulatory hurdles for new developments
- limited land available for construction of new housing
- rent control: skews free-market economics, traps renters, ‘sticker shock’ for new arrivals & movers
- culture of NIMBYism, activism & change aversion
Given the above, do people really think it’s going to be easy-breezy in SF? If you can’t handle the City and its realities, it might be a good idea to move. There’s no enshrined right to live in SF.
Disclosure: I’m a renter with fairly low paying job - but not a whiner.
It’s absurd to paint the strong economic growth of the Bay Area so negative… if the local economy craters, your rent might go down a bit, but how does this help if you’re in danger of losing your job? Be careful what you wish for.
Every SF resident with an ounce of brain understands what is driving the issues around housing; just like in every other comparable place (NYC, London etc):
- desirable city attracts constant influx of new residents
- severe constrains on the housing supply side
- strong regulatory hurdles for new developments
- limited land available for construction of new housing
- rent control: skews free-market economics, traps renters, ‘sticker shock’ for new arrivals & movers
- culture of NIMBYism, activism & change aversion
Given the above, do people really think it’s going to be easy-breezy in SF? If you can’t handle the City and its realities, it might be a good idea to move. There’s no enshrined right to live in SF.
Disclosure: I’m a renter with fairly low paying job - but not a whiner.
16
How about we build a wall around SF to keep out anyone who earns less than a million dollars a year? It would be easy because of the Bay, just wall off the southern section. The bridges have tolls already, those could be increased to, say, $1,000 or so each way. And there could be a special tunnel or something from Palo Alto so that the techie elite and their rich tourist friends don't have to see any of the real world with all those dirty, evicted poor people.
9
Would the Mexican government be asked to pay for this wall?
2
El Chapo's people could build the tunnels and then everybody can walk to work.
As a San Francisco resident, I read the article with some bemusement, but understood and sympathized with many of the comments. The tech boom has brought undeniable benefits to the city, including low unemployment, rising real estate prices, which benefit homeowners like us, and improved health care with state of the art hospitals. Yet the city has lost part of its soul, been diminished by this new gold rush. Having lived here for 33 years and having a wife who is a life long resident, for at least 39 years, the city was a bohemian gem, a meshing of different cultures amidst unbelievable beauty. That feeling has been displaced by generic looking neighborhoods full of millennials who walk around in an almost zombie like state self absorbed in their tech world. These folks seem to be prize new institutions over older establishments, rave about creative destruction, even if it means displacing a 40 year business such as a frame shop, and scream NIMBY at any resident who opposes a planning request that inserts an inappropriate use into a neighborhood. For every Marc Benioff, who has generously contributed to many charitable institutions, there are thousands of junior Mr. Burns, who greedily crave their winnings and decry losers who are displaced by evictions. Every business cycle though evens out and good times cannot last forever. San Francisco will endure and when the tech industry falls into an inevitable trough, the long time residenst will still be here.
163
Meh, fellow SF resident. The rising real estate prices is a negative thing, not a positive. Even with a good job it's impossible to buy in SF. 1 bedroom condos are going for 700k.
2
You mean the long time residents who own property. The ones who don't have to commit 50% or more of their income to minuscule rentals.
1
The irony of the through-the-roof increased home values for those who purchased years ago is, if you sell, where will you go?
I know many young people working in tech who would rather not. However, with tens of thousands of dollars in college dept they do...paying down loans as quickly as possible so they can later focus their careers in education, public health, non profits and more. They live with multiple roommates to keep costs low and rarely take part in much of what city life offers, such as going out to restaurants, theater, etc. But they love the city, take part in their neighborhoods, volunteer in local schools...and keep paying down the loans.
5
It's surprising that the progressives in Portland don't feel the same way. Home prices and rents if i'm not mistaken, are increasing faster percentage wise on a yearly basis than San Francisco and New York, Portland being number 1 in the country. Goes to show even progressives/liberals are hypocrites, they fall not into the Bernie Sanders camp but that of Slick Hillary Clinton's camp. Sell out to Wall St. Sell out to real estate developers, then cry out that there aren't enough homes or services for the poor. Look in the mirror people and then scrawl on the word, "Hypocrite".
5
These people by definition are not Progressives.
Being old, I was lucky and bought a home in Noe Valley in the late 70's, the last house on the block under $100,000. Though it is worth a fortune, I'm going nowhere. Where would I go and why? During a recent hospital stay, I realized all the hospital workers commuted from Vallejo. That is a horrendous commute. Same with our teachers. I am committed to affordable housing, want more of it built and given to families and those who do the real work of running this town.
9
You do realize you're typing on a computer, don't you?
meaning what?
1
Well hopefully, people who make an honest living will move out of San Francisco because they can't afford to stay there. Nobody will work at the supermarkets, dry cleaners, restaurants, and so on, because none of those jobs pay enough to be able to afford to live nearby.
So the city will lose its support infrastructure, the Silicon Valley types won't be able to get groceries or dry cleaning done, and around then folks ought to realize that all the tech start-ups have supplied absolutely nothing of any value. Candy Crush and an app to select the nicest-smelling Uber cars are not actually useful things. No tech company produces anything physical or necessary.
And the industry will collapse, and San Francisco will once again be able to house working class people and artists and so forth.
It'll be tumultuous but it'll work out fine in the end, there's no way for San Fran to become nothing but software engineers and still exist as a city.
So the city will lose its support infrastructure, the Silicon Valley types won't be able to get groceries or dry cleaning done, and around then folks ought to realize that all the tech start-ups have supplied absolutely nothing of any value. Candy Crush and an app to select the nicest-smelling Uber cars are not actually useful things. No tech company produces anything physical or necessary.
And the industry will collapse, and San Francisco will once again be able to house working class people and artists and so forth.
It'll be tumultuous but it'll work out fine in the end, there's no way for San Fran to become nothing but software engineers and still exist as a city.
12
SF is a microcosm of what is happening in other cities too.
One of my good friends lives in Los Angeles and he made $120K and $135K in the last two years respectively and even he is having trouble finding a home to buy. He tells me that he cannot find a decent home, that is in a decent neighborhood or doesn't need complete renovations, for less than $800K.
One of my good friends lives in Los Angeles and he made $120K and $135K in the last two years respectively and even he is having trouble finding a home to buy. He tells me that he cannot find a decent home, that is in a decent neighborhood or doesn't need complete renovations, for less than $800K.
3
I'm sure there are, likewise, people in NY hoping the market will crash and bring rents down. Rents here are a real problem but please don't give more weight to a small outspoken group of San Francisco activists than they deserve. Their sentiments do not reflect the majority.
4
Their sentiments also don't reflect reality. SF population growth has rise continually since the 1970's and there were no significant pullbacks for the 2000 and 2008 crashes. In those pullbacks real estate owners and landlords held their units off the market until housing recovered, which increased housing scarcity while population growth continued. Who wants to rent their unit at the bottom of a cycle in a rent controlled market? Bus-o-phobia is a kind of magical thinking, only with a lot of fear and anger attached, that has kept the Bay Area from coming to terms with the need for new housing construction, and lots of it, together with other reforms.
1
"The majority" that being the types who support Republicans and the Hillary Clinton camp? Better vocal activists who haven't sold their souls out, than a Slick Hillary or any Republican party crony. Bernie Sanders should be sounding better to more people as time goes on, but time is running out. When are you blind fools going to wake up and smell the latrine you're helping to expand? Sanders is the only genuine politician who cares about the ordinary working stiff and down and out poor person. State wise, too bad Governor Brown also sold himself out, he could have helped stop this route of the poor and middle class in California.
1
That's because they are not the majority anymore. The uber-wealthy are the dominant voice. A person must make deep six figures to afford San Francisco, San Jose, and, increasingly, even the bedroom communities of the Bay Area. I'd love to see this bubble collapse, and I'm not alone.
I was walking down valencia street when some hispanic teens were talking aloud, so that others, like me can hear: "Yeah, we were born here ... they should go back to where they came from."
Was tempted to ask when they were born? When did their families move here? What happened to the Italians who were here before them. Or the Ohlone Indians that were before the Italians.
Yeah, the city is changing. Valencia street has become a destination, with many places too expensive for my budget. Without rent-control I'd have to move. There is a new two-bedroom apartment, on Valencia, that goes for 10K a month. The newer places are NOT rent controlled. Only older buildings, like the one I'm in.
So, what would removing rent control solve? Old timers, like myself would have to move. Younger folks without an attachment to the place would take my place. Then another bust happens. Or they want to have kids. So, they move away. Here's a little secret about aging: it becomes harder to move away from your friends.
And would removing rent control lower prices? The owners still have the same incentives to limit supply. So, no.
Was tempted to ask when they were born? When did their families move here? What happened to the Italians who were here before them. Or the Ohlone Indians that were before the Italians.
Yeah, the city is changing. Valencia street has become a destination, with many places too expensive for my budget. Without rent-control I'd have to move. There is a new two-bedroom apartment, on Valencia, that goes for 10K a month. The newer places are NOT rent controlled. Only older buildings, like the one I'm in.
So, what would removing rent control solve? Old timers, like myself would have to move. Younger folks without an attachment to the place would take my place. Then another bust happens. Or they want to have kids. So, they move away. Here's a little secret about aging: it becomes harder to move away from your friends.
And would removing rent control lower prices? The owners still have the same incentives to limit supply. So, no.
7
I don't see why you have a right to a rent controlled apartment anywhere.
Mark, maybe the bank should raise your house payments based on its current value. That would imply home owners have as few rights as renters.
2
SF is not fun even for us "techies" anymore. Housing is way too expensive for family of 4-5 even if you make $200k a year. In order to rent/buy a decent place (for a family) in the city you now need to make over $300k (and keep that job for the next 20 years!). 3br apartments rent for $6000-$7000..
6
This is what tech hath wrought, though. If you're looking for pity that your $200k annual salary isn't enough, you're not going to get it.
1
After writing my elegy for the San Francisco that was I'm reading a lot of comments criticising San Francisco landowners for refusing to consider building enough housing to satisfy demand to keep prices lower. You could build very tall like Manhattan and hope there isn't another Big Quake. Or build higher with smaller apartments in every district (who needs the little old houses?). Repealing rent control is popular to make building more housing more profitable. For sure it will speed up the exodus of annoying people who vote to preserve San Francisco and remove their votes for mayor and city council members.
San Francisco dies one way or the other. It becomes a museum that looks like the living city it was, preserved by prohibitive housing costs, or it becomes a different city crammed to the gills.
San Francisco dies one way or the other. It becomes a museum that looks like the living city it was, preserved by prohibitive housing costs, or it becomes a different city crammed to the gills.
4
Since you already have a state-mandated housing program which most municipalities depend on and must conform with (the California Housing Element), what you really need to do is to revise this so that you have enough housing growth in a region to keep up with population growth. The Element has ensured that there is some affordable housing construction. If you revised it to ensure that construction keeps up with growth, and made sure that there was construction for every income level, and allowed some municipalities to trade their Element commitments (for example, by getting SF to pay for BART upgrades while increasing housing construction and density in Oakland), then you could solve this. It needs to be a regional solution, which means you need help from Sacramento.
SF needs to upgrade its shabby mass transit. Where does the money go?
6
$900 million went to extend BART from Fremont to Warm Springs, where there will be 880 acres of new housing constructed, providing a second station for the thousands of commuters who are on the waiting list for parking at Fremont BART.
how about "upgrading" middle income housing possibilities? Mass transit comes in a distant second in my book.
1
BART salaries make the MTA look like they are in the poor house.
Thank god the New York tech scene remains much more diverse. In spite of the constant effort to the contrary. I'd never move to that Frat boy side of the country/industry.
3
While illuminating the problems specific to SF this article is yet more proof of the much larger problem of income inequality and wealth hoarding by the 1%. And not just the top 1% but most income growth is going to the top 5 or 10%.
I have no ill will to those who make up the top 9%. While they are doing pretty well, they are not the ones who are rigging the game in their favor and not paying their fair share of taxes like the 1%, especially the top 0.1% and Corporate America.
The phenomenon described in this article is happening in many other cities as well. Here in Austin the cost of living is skyrocketing. I live in a neighborhood that is 11 miles away from downtown. Austin is geographically small so that is considered the very outskirts of town and not a place the wealthy are clamoring to live which would explain the rapid increase in cost of living. The rents in this area have gone from $700/mo for a 1 bed apartment 5 years ago to $1,000/mo now.
I drive for Lyft so I meet a lot of people from out of town and I hear the same story about the cost of living rising exorbitantly and pricing out the middle class in other cities like Portland, Seattle, parts of Los Angeles etc.
Only Bernie Sanders has plans to do anything to really help the middle and lower classes. Unless he is elected President this trend of wealth hoarding and income gains accruing to a small percentage of the population will only get worse as it has under Obama and will continue under Hillary.
I have no ill will to those who make up the top 9%. While they are doing pretty well, they are not the ones who are rigging the game in their favor and not paying their fair share of taxes like the 1%, especially the top 0.1% and Corporate America.
The phenomenon described in this article is happening in many other cities as well. Here in Austin the cost of living is skyrocketing. I live in a neighborhood that is 11 miles away from downtown. Austin is geographically small so that is considered the very outskirts of town and not a place the wealthy are clamoring to live which would explain the rapid increase in cost of living. The rents in this area have gone from $700/mo for a 1 bed apartment 5 years ago to $1,000/mo now.
I drive for Lyft so I meet a lot of people from out of town and I hear the same story about the cost of living rising exorbitantly and pricing out the middle class in other cities like Portland, Seattle, parts of Los Angeles etc.
Only Bernie Sanders has plans to do anything to really help the middle and lower classes. Unless he is elected President this trend of wealth hoarding and income gains accruing to a small percentage of the population will only get worse as it has under Obama and will continue under Hillary.
164
What exactly is 'wealth hoarding'? Saving? Honestly, I just don't know.
If you drive Lyft you are both victim and perpetrator. The programmers have placed you out there as a lure with promises of a few crumbs while their scheme nets billions from the destruction of existing transit systems and the transfer of cost and risk onto others. That is the genius of technology which, I am sorry, Mr Sanders will never grasp until he sees Lyft and Uber as investment banking, and investment banking as Lyft and Uber.
No kidding. You think I don't know all that? I'm just doing this to get by while I am going back to school and b/c I haven't been able to find a better job in the meantime.
Whenever there's change, there's always discontent among the longer-term residents. However, this is a country that succeeded because it allowed for change.
Surely no resident really wants a return the San Francisco that was known more for it's red light districts, drug epidemic, and homelessness?
Like all bubbles, the tech boom will pop, and a new equilibrium will form for the city, with new residents and old. However, for all of us, we're borrowing space and matter. Nothing is forever, and no resident has permanent claim on the city.
Surely no resident really wants a return the San Francisco that was known more for it's red light districts, drug epidemic, and homelessness?
Like all bubbles, the tech boom will pop, and a new equilibrium will form for the city, with new residents and old. However, for all of us, we're borrowing space and matter. Nothing is forever, and no resident has permanent claim on the city.
2
Jerry brown should focus on high speed rail between sacramento and the Bay Area. A significant number of people commute to SF from the sac region daily. Hwy 80 is a virtual parking lot at peak commute times. This would make affordable housing easier for people to commute from.
3
For a brief period I was thinking about getting a place in Fresno (still affordable) and moving out there in a couple years after the high speed rail was finished, which will put it 50 minutes from San Jose. Then I realized they were projecting a $50 ticket cost per round trip. If they ended up charging by the minute travelled rather than the mile travelled, high speed rail might revitalize the Central Valley and work as you suggest. Otherwise you might get confused and think you are riding the Amtrak train to Redding (i.e., you will be only person on the train, paying $30, on a train making a trip which costs 100 times that).
This is an odd take on things. There is not one instance of a region's major economic engine breaking down and that aiding the citizenry, be they high income or low.
A bursting tech bubble in SF would be like the financial industry collapsing in New York. Besides the schadenfreude upside -- the thrust of this article seems to relish the thought of those young techies losing their jobs -- the downside would be a local recession with more homelessness (not less). Sure, rents might stop going up for a while (they probably won't drop much) but that's because there will be a lot of job losses, not just of young start-up employees but of restaurants, clothing stores, with layoffs, as usual, coming from the bottom rungs and working their way up.
A bursting tech bubble in SF would be like the financial industry collapsing in New York. Besides the schadenfreude upside -- the thrust of this article seems to relish the thought of those young techies losing their jobs -- the downside would be a local recession with more homelessness (not less). Sure, rents might stop going up for a while (they probably won't drop much) but that's because there will be a lot of job losses, not just of young start-up employees but of restaurants, clothing stores, with layoffs, as usual, coming from the bottom rungs and working their way up.
3
Having been through 2 tech crashes, there are key differences. Unlike your New York analogy, unemployed engineers usually create their own self-funded startups, so by the time the recession is over you just have a new crop of fast-growing successful companies. Many of the billion dollar companies today started this way in the 2000 and 2008 bust aftermaths. Homelessness goes up with population and housing scarcity, and all of those have risen constantly, in both the booms and the busts, since the 1970's. In previous busts, only traffic was reduced, housing scarcity and homelessness were unaffected. Rents stayed the same or rose slowly, because landlords will keep their places empty and wait for recovery because of rent control.
Thanks for the insight 2357. I didn't know that.
Sadly...both sides, Techies and Liberals who feel disenfranchised are delusional. The techies think they actually deserve the money they are earning. What they forget to consider is that those dollars come from private funding that is not limitless. At some point, these useless people building apps for delivery will realize you can't lose $0.90 on the $1.00 and sustain a business long term. For all you liberals who fail to actually consider business principles or economics...just be patient. What happened in 2000, will happen again. The current crop will all leave San Francisco to return to wherever they came from penniless lamenting that they were once paper millionaires. In addition, they will have wasted the best years of their lives chasing empty bank vaults. Rejoice for the only ones getting rich are the Venture Capitalists and a handful of people with preferred shares in their sham businesses.
2
I saw this kind of exodus in 2000, with both the tech workers and investors. A lot of the tech workers came right back in a couple years, and the ones that stayed developed new tech products on their own dime, many of which were financially successful. The ones I know that left for good wish they had stayed and bought houses, since now they can't come back and this is where the best jobs have been for 15 years. By 2008, everyone seemed to have learned the lesson you have not. The laid-off coders got busy on their own startups that are now billion dollar companies. Investors who had sat things out in 2000 kept investing, albeit with more liquidations preferences, etc.. When housing prices fell, people bought housing. Investors lost money, but still made more than they lost overall. Yes, there is a boom and bust cycle. But investors and techies have learned to utilize this cycle. Those on the loosing end haven't even figured it out, and until they do, they won't be able to work on constructive legislative solutions, rather than hoping for salvation by Deus Ex Machina.
In my experience I know many more that left and never came back than those who "came back" or stayed. If what you're saying is true, than why are all the Unicorn companies created by new entrepreneurs and the avg. age of a hipster younger than 30? Even if you are right that many stayed, they are far outnumbered by the gold rush croud who don't remember what it was like in the year 2000.
I've said it before in other contexts, but there is no such thing as sustainable growth. Land in SF is finite (and small), but that doesn't mean it should always go to the highest bidder, which is the current situation. Everyone talks about the homeless and the millionaires, but those of us in the middle are just as pinched as everyone. Even though I make just short of the city's median income (which is well above the national average), when I had to move out of my last apartment the only affordable place I could find was in a gritty, high-crime corner of the city I'd never even been to. Pricing wasn't the only problem, because every open house I attended already had a dozen people looking around a half hour before the appointed time. It was like attending a cocktail in a shark tank. I looked in Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Daly City and it was just as bad. Still, I wouldn't complain so much about the prices if the city wasn't becoming dirtier and more inaccessible in various other ways. Five years ago the city bus system cut service and entire routes and still has yet to adjust the levels according to all of the booming growth. Several friend my age are discussing where we will retire because we doubt the city will be any better in the next 10-15 years. Are techies to blame? Not sure. I do know that there was no $60 haircut available in my old neighborhood when I moved in 6 years ago like there is now.
4
I think that the DMV should create a separate urban driving test for anyone who wants to drive in San Francisco. I've lived and driven in the City since shortly after graduating from Cal, and have seen traffic conditions deteriorate, most notably in the last year. Not only did we have the road closures for the SB50 Occupied Zone, but we also saw that many drivers forgot how to drive safely in the rain after four years of drought. The growing number of SUVs and the increased dimensions of "mid-sized" cars contributes to visibility problems and to parking challenges. (How about a 94%-sized Camry or Tesla that fits the streets better?) Overall, the increased traffic, combined with the extensive use of mobile phones by drivers and their sense of urgency to reach their destinations, has made driving uniquely awful. Riding a bike on our streets isn't much safer than visiting the West Bank.
My car and I are lucky to be in one piece today as I narrowly avoided getting broadsided last week in the Glen Park neighborhood as a young Asian male driver blew through a stop sign at about 50mph. (Reporting the license plate to the police is a futile act.) Later the same day, I saw another car ignore a red light, this time close to schools in the Upper Haight/Twin Peaks area.
The people who can drive on 101 or in suburban Sunnyvale aren't necessarily qualified to drive in SF. Nor are the foreign tourists. Let's find a way to control them and improve the safety and quality of life here.
My car and I are lucky to be in one piece today as I narrowly avoided getting broadsided last week in the Glen Park neighborhood as a young Asian male driver blew through a stop sign at about 50mph. (Reporting the license plate to the police is a futile act.) Later the same day, I saw another car ignore a red light, this time close to schools in the Upper Haight/Twin Peaks area.
The people who can drive on 101 or in suburban Sunnyvale aren't necessarily qualified to drive in SF. Nor are the foreign tourists. Let's find a way to control them and improve the safety and quality of life here.
1
I don't think tech is to blame for the real estate insanity. From what I can see it's the Chinese. Go to any open house and look through the hundreds of business cards left behind by agents and prospective buyers. Prices would be 30% lower if it were just mere mortals bidding for homes.
30
Australia banned purchases of existing real estate by foreign investors. I have personal knowledge of multiple tech worker families displaced by sales of their rentals to Chinese investors in the last year. Real estate agents say about 30% of purchases are all cash to Chinese investors. Banning this would not solve SF's housing problem, because you can't have population growth double that of housing growth for 20 years and expect this crisis to end without fixing that. But identifying tech as the problem, when the population growth trend has been the same for 40 years, while ignoring these contributors, distracts everyone while doing nothing about getting the problem fixed in Sacramento.
3
Whatever your views on the techies' 'right' to the city, there is no arguing that San Francisco is less interesting, less colorful, and less diverse than ever.
Art is fading. A once thriving music scene is dying. People of color, teachers, and public servants are leaving.
American media, desperate to give capitalism a new "great white hope" anointed the techies as the new rock stars. And in their arrogance the techies believed it.
Infatuated with money, materialism, status, and their own monoculture, they are blind and deaf to how boring and uptight they are—or how they have decimated the culture of one of the world's great melting pots for ideas and multidisciplinary intellectual exchange.
Art is fading. A once thriving music scene is dying. People of color, teachers, and public servants are leaving.
American media, desperate to give capitalism a new "great white hope" anointed the techies as the new rock stars. And in their arrogance the techies believed it.
Infatuated with money, materialism, status, and their own monoculture, they are blind and deaf to how boring and uptight they are—or how they have decimated the culture of one of the world's great melting pots for ideas and multidisciplinary intellectual exchange.
33
I am a techie. Every couple weeks I get together to play music in SF with the largest group of musicians in the Bay Area, most of whom are recent tech arrivals. My degree is in the Humanities, with some publications. I have works in a number of museum collections. My family is brown. The tech workers I know are, in descending order of race: Indian, White, Chinese, Russian, Japanese, etc. All are exceptionally well-educated and cultured. All are paying astoundingly high rents to longtime SF residents, most of whom are, in my experience, White Baby Boomers. I also constantly hear complaints like yours, with increasing stridency, but almost without exception they are from longtime White Baby Boomer SF residents who are demographically indistinguishable from the landlords, but who are themselves renters. Tech bro is also a stereotype. The monoculture I am getting tired of is this stereotype and the bitterness that comes with it. If you assume that all tech people are greedy, materialistic, and status oriented, and in doing so send such people running for the exits, how could you even know what they are really like?
2
Be careful what you wish for...
2
A similar thing is happening in Seattle/Bellevue area, though not to the extent it is in San Francisco. The techs boom because of Amazon/Microsoft is simply driving the rents through the roof. But right now the numbers of people displaced by this are not as much, or they are not as organized to specifically direct the anger at tech industry. Bernie talks about malfeasance by Wall street, but this is way more complicated. It is the best of the times for younger techies, but the worst of the time for jobs that get displaced, or simply the roadkill such as middle aged or elderly people who get evicted from their apartments because of rent rises.
4
Unlike other urban cities, San Francisco has done a deplorable job in creating policy-based equity, e.g., affordable, accessible low income homes. The sheer audacity and greed of the young ‘bros’ and their sidekick girl friends is not being seen for what it truly is – white and brown people, with zero community investment, who have selected to take over a city as an extension of their playground. If community could be an app that could make these bros rich they would quickly create a business plan to develop it. The lawlessness of the city coupled with visual inequities is now the new norm in San Francisco.
9
San Francisco's housing policies are hostile to landlords, and therefore to the development and maintenance of rental properties. Rent control and strong anti-eviction policies lead to a greatly reduced supply of rental units and therefore a much higher market rate for available units. It's simple economics, not only in San Francisco but in every other city with strong "pro-tenant" laws.
What's new is the sheer number of new purchasers - techies plus a significant wave from mainland China, similar to the Hong Kong wave of the 80s. Together, these two groups are pushing the edge of Ellis Act evictions much further into the rental pool, and there's no available housing to which they can move.
The market solution - to weaken those tenant protections, thereby bringing more rental properties into the market - is politically impossible, and unfortunately can't be grokked by S.F. liberals, who have the normal human allocation of intellectual blind spots.
The "riff-raff" comments are unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. I have friends on both sides of the divide, and the techies are put off by the significant percentage of S.F. residents who think that the city should guarantee the right to live in an apartment with 20-year-old rental rates, to live on unemployment 6 months a year, to wake up at noon, to get stoned and walk to the park to throw a Frisbee. The tech-bros are pretty obnoxious, but I can see their point sometimes.
What's new is the sheer number of new purchasers - techies plus a significant wave from mainland China, similar to the Hong Kong wave of the 80s. Together, these two groups are pushing the edge of Ellis Act evictions much further into the rental pool, and there's no available housing to which they can move.
The market solution - to weaken those tenant protections, thereby bringing more rental properties into the market - is politically impossible, and unfortunately can't be grokked by S.F. liberals, who have the normal human allocation of intellectual blind spots.
The "riff-raff" comments are unfortunate, but not entirely surprising. I have friends on both sides of the divide, and the techies are put off by the significant percentage of S.F. residents who think that the city should guarantee the right to live in an apartment with 20-year-old rental rates, to live on unemployment 6 months a year, to wake up at noon, to get stoned and walk to the park to throw a Frisbee. The tech-bros are pretty obnoxious, but I can see their point sometimes.
14
I agree with much of what you've said, but I must add that the crooked compromise that led to SF's rent control ordinance being what it is is a major source of problems here, IMHO. Rent control here applies only to pre 1979 buildings (the year it was enacted) and it limits rent increases on those rent-controlled buildings to amounts that are far less than actual inflation. Owners of old, expensive to maintain buildings thus end up with far less rental income than they might otherwise receive; long term tenants find themselves getting sweetheart deals that they of course hold on to tenaciously (with the law on their side). There are thus pressures to: kick out long term tenants even if rules need to be broken to do so, allow older buildings to deteriorate and even burn depending on how crooked the owner may be, cajole or bribe building inspectors and permitters (and politicians) when new construction is at stake (more than occurs elsewhere).
If we had FAIR rent control that was pegged to actual inflation and which had provisions to be gradually applied to new construction once the builders' costs had been recouped, the rental situation would be much more manageable. Fixing the problems with rent control could be made palatable to the electorate, but those who are profiting from the chaos would never allow it.
If we had FAIR rent control that was pegged to actual inflation and which had provisions to be gradually applied to new construction once the builders' costs had been recouped, the rental situation would be much more manageable. Fixing the problems with rent control could be made palatable to the electorate, but those who are profiting from the chaos would never allow it.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with your analysis, except for your comments about the permitting and inspection process. I've dealt with building departments throughout the Bay Area, California, and in a couple of other states; I'd mark San Francisco's right at the top for professionalism and integrity. Not perfect, but among the top, and head and shoulders above many. In my experience.
It's natural for building departments to be in the middle of the tug-of-war over housing policies. I think that they more likely feel cornered, rather than empowered, by their role.
It's natural for building departments to be in the middle of the tug-of-war over housing policies. I think that they more likely feel cornered, rather than empowered, by their role.
There are two issues at hand here. The local start-ups in the city have been fueled more by the Fed's ZIRP more than ideas, innovation or actual GAAP profit. Many of them will shut down or be bought on the cheap over the next few years. The other issue is that the genuinely profitable companies based in the Valley have expanded their campuses without supporting expanded housing in the Valley. Hence the new hires end up in SF riding the buses to work. San Francisco is already 10x more densely populated that San Mateo or Santa Clara counties. Yet SF is constantly told to build more SoDoSoPa condos. Densify the burbs.
11
During the 30+ years I've lived and worked in San Francisco, I've held positions in the nonprofit industry and public higher education. These positions pay well - if I lived in another part of the country. In San Francisco, I just get by. Unfortunately, I would have to move out of the Bay Area if I were ever evicted from my rent controlled apartment. I know many people blame rent control for high rents (along with other factors such as the tech boom), but it is a life line for me and many other long-term or native-born residents who have been unable to purchase a home because the cost has always been out of reach. I truly live in fear of eviction and in this tight market it is a constant worry. I never ask my unbelievable cheap landlady for anything - I pay for repairs myself - out of fear of awaking a sleeping dragon.
16
I'm astonished by some of the "oh, well, that's how it is" attitudes I'm reading here, and by the assumption that some special few should have a right -- a right! -- to live without having to trip over the little people. Gads. It's also incorrect to locate the problem of the rising cost of shelter only in SF proper. One of my sisters was for many years an "itinerant academic"; finally earning that long-awaited tenure-line job at SFState, she's been tenured now for about 2 years. She lives in a tiny rental in Brisbane with the constant awareness that when the rent gets hiked again, as happens annually, she may no longer be able to afford to keep her job. Please read that last sentence again, and consider the very idea that there are people for whom the cost of living in a way that enables them to perform their jobs makes it impossible for them to continue working. This is okay, how?
I wonder how appealing San Fransisco will be when the many people whose lives and work are part of its lure are gone.
Hali Fieldman, Ph.D.
Kansas City, MO
I wonder how appealing San Fransisco will be when the many people whose lives and work are part of its lure are gone.
Hali Fieldman, Ph.D.
Kansas City, MO
34
Ah well, that's how it is.
I was a lecturer at SFState and always received excellent evaluations, but I was treated as lecturers so often are these days - not chosen for a tenure track job as I am not enough of a rockstar and then elbowed out entirely rather than being given a raise. They had to trash several provisions of the lecturer's contract to achieve that, but I can't say I was sorry to go.
The irony of it is, I'm a local; born and raised in the Bay Area, I own a house that's a 7 minute bike ride from SFSU and my payments are low enough that I could easily afford to live on your sister's salary.
I don't know how any of it is OK.
I was a lecturer at SFState and always received excellent evaluations, but I was treated as lecturers so often are these days - not chosen for a tenure track job as I am not enough of a rockstar and then elbowed out entirely rather than being given a raise. They had to trash several provisions of the lecturer's contract to achieve that, but I can't say I was sorry to go.
The irony of it is, I'm a local; born and raised in the Bay Area, I own a house that's a 7 minute bike ride from SFSU and my payments are low enough that I could easily afford to live on your sister's salary.
I don't know how any of it is OK.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of entitlements. This is what Americans have become. It's important to understand how disjointed this mindset has become and how it will eventually take us down as a society.
8
SillyCON valley. You have to be LUCKY to make it here. Smart, absolutely. Determined. working 19-20 hours a day. Yep. Driven. Have the right friends. More work. Then you might be able to weasel your way into a small fortune. Anything larger is mostly pure luck. Don't even think about having a family here. And because there is no social safety net - at all - California is a harsh mistress, all failures lead to eviction or destitution. Its a sad, sad sham of a "golden dream" . The techies are busy building a future without them, which is hilarious. By being so expensive and automating everything in some short period of time the skills will be fully commoditized except at the highest levels. Its a bloody feeding frenzy and despite the nice weather nobody has a tan and nobody enjoys life - they binge eat and drink, work hard, and sit in traffic. Real estate is horrible and the losers here dont build anything to help the middle class. Rubbish houses like 2 BR 1 BA routinely go for well over 1M. For the smartest people on earth supposedly living here they are the worst and dumbest Sim City players in existence where your basic middle class is screwed to the wall.
21
The people opposing the shuttles would apparently rather have the alternative, namely, each of those bus riders driving a private car, adding to the traffic jams, air pollution and parked cars on the street.
That's only the most obvious example of simplistic thinking about a complex situation with a lot of vectors. A lot of cities — Detroit, for starters — would LOVE to have these kinds of problems.
That's only the most obvious example of simplistic thinking about a complex situation with a lot of vectors. A lot of cities — Detroit, for starters — would LOVE to have these kinds of problems.
6
This article completely avoids discussing the root cause of the SF/Bay Area housing crisis: housing construction isn't even remotely keeping up with skyrocketing demand. As a "tech worker" who lived in the Bay Area for years, it was extremely frustrating to hear locals bemoan the growing housing crisis and simultaneously block any and all new housing.
I and other tech workers actually tried to help fix the problem by pushing the city of Mountain View to create more housing and it's actually happening: 10,250 units in North Bayshore (near Google and LinkedIn).
This crisis, and the SF part in particular, was completely avoidable and still can be fixed if anyone besides tech workers actually try to fix the problem.
I and other tech workers actually tried to help fix the problem by pushing the city of Mountain View to create more housing and it's actually happening: 10,250 units in North Bayshore (near Google and LinkedIn).
This crisis, and the SF part in particular, was completely avoidable and still can be fixed if anyone besides tech workers actually try to fix the problem.
17
Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it. There will be a bust and another boom someday. There is no reason to believe that this one is any different than the last one on a core structural basis. The players may be different, the technology advanced, but the underlying excesses are at the root are the same. They say the last boom was going to go on without correction, "since we learn how to manage the cycles as well as it being the 'new economy'". They say the current boom is sustainable "since many of these companies are private and the general public is not involved helping to puff up these valuations".
A little failure is good an humbling and provides a perspective into what is truly important. Most of use are not that much better that the next guy, it is the luck of the draw after. Somebody has gotta win the lottery despite the overwhelming odds, but does that make him or her any more superior to the rest of us?
A little failure is good an humbling and provides a perspective into what is truly important. Most of use are not that much better that the next guy, it is the luck of the draw after. Somebody has gotta win the lottery despite the overwhelming odds, but does that make him or her any more superior to the rest of us?
1
This is a deliberately one sided and biased article. The opponents to the tech economy are quoted at length and sympathetically, while the only actual tech worker quoted is one of the most clueless and obnoxious. Steitfeld ignores the violence perpetuated against the mostly young and Asian tech worker population: the assaults, the fliers calling for death, the shuttle windows shattered by gunfire and rocks and instead only mentions the peaceful protests. He neglects to mention that the anti-tech worker leadership is overwhelmingly white, own their own homes and are wealthy. These anti-growth politicians created a shortage by opposing market rate housing at every turn and now cynically try to exploit people's natural anger at being priced out.
This article is not an honest discussion of the issues: it is only designed to foment hate. I expect more from the New York Times. I am disappointed.
This article is not an honest discussion of the issues: it is only designed to foment hate. I expect more from the New York Times. I am disappointed.
13
Oh man. Little depressing looking at the 'Hustle' photos. All those smart kids trying to create/sell the next gazillion dollar gizwhizmo or service that will not add one iota to the quality of life for anyone. Even the kids veering toward health care are going into..... technology! You have to know that means IT, data juggling, making millions by slicing and dicing payments, eligibility, etc or by selling the data captured in the wonderful endlessly useless ICD 10's. Not a bench scientist, chemist, biologist, or creator of the next lifesaving device in the lot of them.
5
Very good observation. I was thinking exactly the same thing. Then again, to become a chemist or biologist (or expert in any of the hard sciences) is excruciatingly difficult and requires devoting one's entire life to their study. I suppose these kids would lose interest in a hurry. They seem more intent on chasing money by generating the modern software equivalent of junk food.
1
Well, that's misinformed. Data is the new frontier of healthcare, which means it's rooted in technology. Even the president has announced a PMI - Precision Medicine Initiative. The company I work for is a data company, not focused on healthcare, and we're already saving plenty of lives through predictive medicine.
If there wasn't any value-add from these kids or these companies, there wouldn't be any funding put towards them, and no one would be willing to buy their products and services.
If there wasn't any value-add from these kids or these companies, there wouldn't be any funding put towards them, and no one would be willing to buy their products and services.
1
Data is the new frontier of healthcare - spoken like a true techie, not like anyone who has worked in Medicine. Data is valuable only insofar as it is the new money stream in the area. EHR's contribute not one iota to the health and well-being of any of our patients. Most EHRs don't interact with other EHRs. Few assist in the art of making an accurate diagnosis or gathering the information that might lead to one. Most are intrusive to say the least. Funding doesn't always go to something that adds true value. Just look at Facebook. We're not part of the Facebook nation and we seem happier than most.
2
As a San Francisco TV reporter for 25 years I'm happy for its success. But when everyone is rich where will the next artists come from? They're the ones who gave the City its special texture and heart. Where is the next Maya Angelou, Robert Frost, Jerry Garcia, Carlos Santana, Grace Slick, Lawrence Ferlinghetti and so many more? They won't come from the mercantile class.
453
i didnt know artists needed a certain place to make art
2
It's the mercantile class that supports and buys their art. Those who who create art pick the places, but it's those with money that fund it.
3
The next artists may well come from suburbs. While it may not be true in San Francisco, in the New York area there are many appealing places outside the city where there is a HUGE difference in real estate prices. Same thing in London.
2
I don't know if a New York City paper should be casting aspersions on another city - even San Francisco - for high rents and homelessness. Maybe if we figure these things out first we can deliver some knowledge and expertise to other American cities.
8
There have been many articles written about this situation, but few tie SF's current high rents to the restriction that the city puts on new development. Apartments are in such high demand that when I moved here a year ago, I went to an open house where 20 people gave the landlord deposit checks (he chose the person that paid a full year up-front.) I want the city to maintain some character and enjoy the views as well, but we must decide what cost we are willing to pay for it. Perhaps a middle ground could be found.
3
We're experiencing similar trends in Boston, though may not as dire as San Francisco. Everyone is learning how tech and foreign money do not improve cities. We have a sort of housing crisis here too with rents nearly as high as New York and badly overburdened roads and public transportation. There's mushrooming "luxury" high-rise development, but that kind of citadel building does nothing to improve neighborhoods - really it makes them less attractive. The rich drive their Range Rovers to the valet and then disappear. Meanwhile, long-time residents and useful businesses like book stores and other specialty business that make cities interesting are evicted in favor of flagship chain stores and luxury (there's that word again) goods purveyors. The real estate gets corporatized and the streets get worse, more homelessness, narcotics distribution and wandering youth gangs. Amazing, really, how none of the boom trickles down while the money goes to overinflated luxury goods and high priced condos. The tech industry is a big part of it here, but foreign (i.e., mostly Arabian Gulf states) non-residents pour their cash into overpriced real estate and are an even bigger factor here. In this "global" economy, boom times are bad times.
23
This type of issue is going to only get worse as our nation continues toward greater and greater wealth inequality. Soon there will be gated enclaves with maximum security to protect the wealthy from those "others", who will be forced to live in outlying slums.
So much for the great melting pot.
I think the way to remedy this and to ensure America's promise is to reinstate the income tax rates from earlier times when the majority of Americans reaped the benefits of increased productivity. Right now too many rich people with too much money chasing too many luxury goods, while basic needs of the many are not met.
So much for the great melting pot.
I think the way to remedy this and to ensure America's promise is to reinstate the income tax rates from earlier times when the majority of Americans reaped the benefits of increased productivity. Right now too many rich people with too much money chasing too many luxury goods, while basic needs of the many are not met.
13
Yes, it amazes me how the rich have brought on hyperinflation of trophy real estate and tasteless luxury goods while the standard of living declines. I like to think of nearby Newton, MA where a respectable house costs $2.5M. The Newton streets are all potholes and the answer is to buy a Range Rover SUV - not pay your taxes and improve roads. Unregulated (19th Century) capitalism is failing and "globalism" is accelerating that failure because it's anti-democratic. Interestingly, the Soviet-style command economies are doing well in the age of technology, particularly Finland. I think there is a much deeper movement growing than just Donald Trump, a dictatorship of the New Proletariat, the disenfranchised middle class.
4
True, I live in a rent-controlled apartment and have been spared the harshest effects of soaring rents, but I know that any slowdown in the tech industry is bound to have very negative effects on San Francisco.
Basically, the City suffers from its own geography. There are 800,000 plus people attempting to live in less than fifty square miles. This might not seem crowded by NYC standards, but by other US standards, the City is very densely populated.
The City will never be able to house all those who want to live here: and all the artificial attempts (eg: requiring builders to set aside a certain percentage of their newly constructed apartments for low income residents) in the world will not alter geographic, social, and economic facts of SF's existence.
To pretend otherwise is foolish.
Basically, the City suffers from its own geography. There are 800,000 plus people attempting to live in less than fifty square miles. This might not seem crowded by NYC standards, but by other US standards, the City is very densely populated.
The City will never be able to house all those who want to live here: and all the artificial attempts (eg: requiring builders to set aside a certain percentage of their newly constructed apartments for low income residents) in the world will not alter geographic, social, and economic facts of SF's existence.
To pretend otherwise is foolish.
13
"negative effects"? More like stepping back to reality. Once given a sweet treat, little children will never go back to eating porridge.
1
I've lived in San Francisco for 25 years, and have mixed feelings about the change and growth. This city evolved from a sleepy backwater in which the Museum of Modern Art was located in a few fusty rooms above the opera hall, to being the destination for ambitious young people from all over the world. However the economic benefits are not trickling down. Homelessness is at an all-time high. Middle class residents that remain, are hanging on by a thread. Streets are filthy, public transportation is poor, public schools are not terrific. Our skyline is crisscrossed with ugly overhead wires, which are only underground in wealthy neighborhoods. All this points to something fishy in city government. Homes are selling like hot cakes, so one would assume the property taxes collected are rising. But where is the money going?
379
Some of the "ugly" overhead wires make the City's "green" trolley buses run, and cannot be undergrounded anywhere.
8
Not to mention: where is the tax money going from all of the tech businesses that moved up here or opened offices here (Twitter, Google, etc). Oh ... right, they got a big tax break for bringing business and prosperity to the city--which appears to be benefiting them and not many others. The "leaders" in this city are very short sighted.
9
The money is going to underfunded pension obligations.
2
I moved to SFO in the summer of '78. My share of a three-bedroom flat at 15th and Church was $95 per month including utilities -- although I had the smallest bedroom that looked out into the light well shared with the adjacent building.
While San Francisco has as many challenges as its charms, one of the major problems is that wages have not kept up with costs of living for many working Americans. In 1978 I earned just over $10 per hour part-time checking out groceries in a supermarket, which helped support me while I was attending college. If San Francisco hadn't adopted its own minimum wage several years ago, the current California minimum of $10 per hour would not go very far toward rent and other living expenses today -- 38 years later. But neither does SFO's current $12.25 hourly minimum.
While San Francisco has as many challenges as its charms, one of the major problems is that wages have not kept up with costs of living for many working Americans. In 1978 I earned just over $10 per hour part-time checking out groceries in a supermarket, which helped support me while I was attending college. If San Francisco hadn't adopted its own minimum wage several years ago, the current California minimum of $10 per hour would not go very far toward rent and other living expenses today -- 38 years later. But neither does SFO's current $12.25 hourly minimum.
11
This is not a "tech" problem, it is a city governance problem. The city has a stated policy of cramming in as many people as possible, leading to breakdowns in all city services, no parking and rising rents as the supply of new housing lags. The housing lags because of the city policies, where replacing your windows becomes cause for public hearings and lawsuits. The "homeless" are lured here by city governance, which uses taxpayer money as a piggy-bank to buy votes; there is homeless-industrial-complex paid for by taxpayer money and which is used by the entrenched "progressive" politicians to buy votes. As in most places, the "homeless" are addicted and mentally ill to a large extent and the Police are prevented by city rules from dealing with the issues of lakes of urine on the downtown sidewalks, and etc. This is,, also a "sanctuary" city where citizens are murdered on the streets by illegal aliens who were not turned over to ICE after many earlier local arrests. Once again, votes are the reason, and the citizens are just collateral damage.
5
I think Robert Frost - himself a native San Franciscan, said it best in the following poem:
Dust always blowing about the town,
Except when sea-fog laid it down,
And I was one of the children told
Some of the blowing dust was gold.
All the dust the wind blew high
Appeared like gold in the sunset sky,
But I was one of the children told
Some of the dust was really gold.
Such was life in the Golden Gate:
Gold dusted all we drank and ate,
And I was one of the children told,
'We all must eat our peck of gold'.
Techsters and transplants, take heed - the bubble will burst and you too will have to eat your peck of gold!
Dust always blowing about the town,
Except when sea-fog laid it down,
And I was one of the children told
Some of the blowing dust was gold.
All the dust the wind blew high
Appeared like gold in the sunset sky,
But I was one of the children told
Some of the dust was really gold.
Such was life in the Golden Gate:
Gold dusted all we drank and ate,
And I was one of the children told,
'We all must eat our peck of gold'.
Techsters and transplants, take heed - the bubble will burst and you too will have to eat your peck of gold!
10
San Francisco was created by the Gold Rush back in the 1840's and 1850's, and this article tells us about its latter-day services gold rush, on top of its real estate gold rush, on top of its tech gold rush. Has anything really changed? I've never seen or heard of a gold rush that fosters community care.
4
There are parallels & differences to the late 1990's dot-com boom. Back then, there was lots of displacement in the South of Market (formerly a light industrial/warehouse) area and there was a lot of pressure on retail shops that saw high rents & losing leases. However, this time, I see some differences - some retail stores remain vacant (maybe due to high rents, maybe due to on-line shopping), and probably a slow deflation of the bubble, as opposed to a sudden bursting. But definitely the city of SF is more crowded than in the past and one just needs to realize that it is a small city, with little space to expand and it disrupts many things that originally made the city charming.
1
I have lived across the Bay in Oakland for the past 18 years, and I am now seeing the unpleasant effects of the the SF tech boom in the East Bay as well. People no longer able to afford San Francisco are coming here in droves, causing a housing disruption that mirrors that in our sister city across the Bay. Evictions are commonplace, and people who have lived here for generations are being forced out.
As important, however, is the narcissistic and entitled attitude of so many of the young "techies" that has become, sadly, so prevalent here. Justin Keller, who complained about the homeless and “riffraff" in San Francisco, has an attitude that is all too common here, and is actually destroying what was once so good about San Francisco; tolerance and liberal thought.
As important, however, is the narcissistic and entitled attitude of so many of the young "techies" that has become, sadly, so prevalent here. Justin Keller, who complained about the homeless and “riffraff" in San Francisco, has an attitude that is all too common here, and is actually destroying what was once so good about San Francisco; tolerance and liberal thought.
10
Where will the thugs and killers live in the future - Milpitis?
3
Oakland -- SF's dowdy little sister across the Bay -- used to be the fallback place to go live, if you couldn't afford SF.
Now, even Oakland is crazy expensive. And don't even get me started on uber-costly Berkeley (just down the road from Oakland).
Now, even Oakland is crazy expensive. And don't even get me started on uber-costly Berkeley (just down the road from Oakland).
2
There are many wonderful things about Oakland, but the schools are mediocre, driving the streets is akin to off-roading, and the police are inexcusably undermanned. And, we have a mayor who seems to care less about any of these things. The silver lining to an influx of techies from the Silicon Valley and SF may be that their property tax dollars will change some of these things. Maybe.
And if a few giant companies move out? How would they like that loss of tax revenue. Well just keep taxing the companies and like in Connecticut, totally run by Democrats, you'll see an exodus of companies. The only reason companies are there is because of the talent exchange. If people decide to leave for friendlier climates the companies will go too.
3
Tech companies were lured here with significant tax breaks. And the millionaire/billionaire techies at the top probably enjoy big breaks, too. So, there's not the tax benefit to the city that it might seem there would be.
7
Another urban myth. Total tax (state and local) on business in CT is second to the lowest in the U.S. at 28.9% of gross state product. Only Oregon is lower.
CT is 27% lower than the national average tax on business. You're tied with North Carolina as next to lowest in corporate tax. In most of the U.S. corporations pay $1.20 for every $1 of government spending that benefits business (education, infrastructure, low property crime, return on capital) but in CT, your wonderful little state, business pays only $.80 for every $1 spent in this way. Corporate tax is only 7.5% of the total tax paid by business to reach the 28.9% total tax. Property tax, sales tax, local tax make up the rest. Like so many myths, the myth of high taxes on corporations persists. CT cannot compete with cheap engineers and data processors or call centers workers in China and Mumbai. Not even with no tax. And that is why insurance and aerospace companies and financials are leaving a few supervisors on-call on this continent, and sending the jobs and equipment (the design and refinement of which you may have paid for in state supported research and development) to foreign or southern climes. IT'S NOT THE TAX RATE. It's greed.
companies and
while in CT
CT is 27% lower than the national average tax on business. You're tied with North Carolina as next to lowest in corporate tax. In most of the U.S. corporations pay $1.20 for every $1 of government spending that benefits business (education, infrastructure, low property crime, return on capital) but in CT, your wonderful little state, business pays only $.80 for every $1 spent in this way. Corporate tax is only 7.5% of the total tax paid by business to reach the 28.9% total tax. Property tax, sales tax, local tax make up the rest. Like so many myths, the myth of high taxes on corporations persists. CT cannot compete with cheap engineers and data processors or call centers workers in China and Mumbai. Not even with no tax. And that is why insurance and aerospace companies and financials are leaving a few supervisors on-call on this continent, and sending the jobs and equipment (the design and refinement of which you may have paid for in state supported research and development) to foreign or southern climes. IT'S NOT THE TAX RATE. It's greed.
companies and
while in CT
2
So the combination of rent control and highly restrictive zoning leads to increased housing costs. Who could've forseen such a scenario?
6
"During the late 1990s dot-com boom, the office parks of Silicon Valley were another world to most San Franciscans, a place somewhere to the south that they need never go. "
Where on earth did you get that idea? When I lived in San Francisco in the 90s many people I knew commuted more than an hour each way to Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Jose to Sun MicroSystems, Oracle, Adobe and all the others. Many of my friends still do.
I refuse to understand how people blame "techies" for a housing shotage and evictions when they are just normal people seeking work. The real culpits are landlords, who evict at will just so they can double the rent, and city officials who can't come up with a decent zoning plan or rental laws. We suffered an "owner move in" - the same owner "moved" into 3 of her units over 5 years, kicked us out and tripled the rent. Totally illegal, and no consequences at all. San Francsico needs proper rent control laws that prevent units from being rented for more than a certain percentage above the previous rent. I live in Paris now and the government has just started doing this to prevent price gauging and as an attempt to keep housing affordable. You can rent a 2 BR in a decent neighborhood here for $2800. Blame the greedy, not the workers who just want a roof over their heads and a job like everyone else.
Where on earth did you get that idea? When I lived in San Francisco in the 90s many people I knew commuted more than an hour each way to Mountain View, Sunnyvale and San Jose to Sun MicroSystems, Oracle, Adobe and all the others. Many of my friends still do.
I refuse to understand how people blame "techies" for a housing shotage and evictions when they are just normal people seeking work. The real culpits are landlords, who evict at will just so they can double the rent, and city officials who can't come up with a decent zoning plan or rental laws. We suffered an "owner move in" - the same owner "moved" into 3 of her units over 5 years, kicked us out and tripled the rent. Totally illegal, and no consequences at all. San Francsico needs proper rent control laws that prevent units from being rented for more than a certain percentage above the previous rent. I live in Paris now and the government has just started doing this to prevent price gauging and as an attempt to keep housing affordable. You can rent a 2 BR in a decent neighborhood here for $2800. Blame the greedy, not the workers who just want a roof over their heads and a job like everyone else.
3
Of course SF's homeless population scares tech babies. Techies have invaded our beloved city with your gadget idolatry, your sophomoronic man-cave offices and free pizza, and your bizarre and foolish willingness to pay $3,000 to $4,000 a month for a teeny apartment, driving out families and artists and musicians and bohemians and gay rebels while enriching SF's sky's-the-limit greedy landlord class. Tech workers are dull soulless corporate drones, and you've made San Francisco a boring and ridiculously expensive place to live.
19
Agreed, Tom. It seems once a week I hear about some beloved venerable San Francisco institution closing--most recently Liverpool Lil's, an old pub with character once frequented by Joe Dimaggio--to make room for cheaply constructed overpriced condos or apartment buildings. At this stage, one has to wonder, what is the draw to this city? It used to be the culture, the charm, the variety ... now it seems it's just the money-making opportunity.
7
'Foolish willingness to pay 3000-4000 a month for a teeny apartment'? 3000-4000 is the market rent for a one bedroom apartment in SF. What do you expect people to do for housing if they don't want to quit their SF job, sleep on a boat?
So how is it the Golden State has the most but never manages its well? One expects the mayors of Rust Belt cities to say they have a budget deficit. Their economies have been in freefall for the past 50 years. But San Francisco?! How can a city come up short when it's home to enviable corporations for which any other community would give its pro sports teams?
Even without the tech boom, this is a city constant economic vitality driven almost exclusively by its lifestyle quality.
And it’s on that fault line, along with San Andreas, that San Francisco rests uneasily. Sure, it has lovely neighborhoods and gracious architecture, but it is located on on a cold, fog-covered peninsula that rarely sees the sun; is uphill in all directions; and is trying to literally shake its denizens into the sea.
The connective tissue between these two extremes is the people. The populace of the city has used boundless creativity to surmount those hills, warm enlightenment to create its own sunny attitude, and strong relationships between communities to generate a vibrant culture. Take those people out of San Francisco and it’s just Alcatraz West, albeit with Painted Ladies.
San Franciscans are rightly angered by leadership that has not looked out for the interest of those who made it the city big money wants into. It is possible for the bohemian culture to shift across the bay, and leave San Franciscans envying Oakland.
Even without the tech boom, this is a city constant economic vitality driven almost exclusively by its lifestyle quality.
And it’s on that fault line, along with San Andreas, that San Francisco rests uneasily. Sure, it has lovely neighborhoods and gracious architecture, but it is located on on a cold, fog-covered peninsula that rarely sees the sun; is uphill in all directions; and is trying to literally shake its denizens into the sea.
The connective tissue between these two extremes is the people. The populace of the city has used boundless creativity to surmount those hills, warm enlightenment to create its own sunny attitude, and strong relationships between communities to generate a vibrant culture. Take those people out of San Francisco and it’s just Alcatraz West, albeit with Painted Ladies.
San Franciscans are rightly angered by leadership that has not looked out for the interest of those who made it the city big money wants into. It is possible for the bohemian culture to shift across the bay, and leave San Franciscans envying Oakland.
5
If you guys had been paying attention, you'd realize that the solution is already out there. Build a wall across the Peninsula. And make Santa Clara pay for it.
31
Other related issues:
1. Can the wealth be spread to other nearby cities like Hayward, Fremont, or even some in the Central Valley.
2. Why does tech mainly employ young white males? Are women, non-whites, or older workers really not qualified?
3. Could a global city such as San Francisco perhaps invest more in denser housing (that is nice) and a more extensive regional public transit?
1. Can the wealth be spread to other nearby cities like Hayward, Fremont, or even some in the Central Valley.
2. Why does tech mainly employ young white males? Are women, non-whites, or older workers really not qualified?
3. Could a global city such as San Francisco perhaps invest more in denser housing (that is nice) and a more extensive regional public transit?
6
The wealth is spreading to other cities. Hayward, perhaps not, but certainly Fremont as housing prices and rental prices can attest.
I don't see a single young, white male waiting for the Google and Facebook buses that I see daily on my commute. A group of 20 people and they are all Indian and/or Chinese. The H1B visas and the ability of foreign nationals to pay all cash for homes (with the help of their government of course) is forcing long time residents out all over the Bay Area, not just in SF.
SF has definitely lost what made it special for so long. It used to be a wonderful place to wander, but it seems to have lost its soul. Or maybe I just got old.
I don't see a single young, white male waiting for the Google and Facebook buses that I see daily on my commute. A group of 20 people and they are all Indian and/or Chinese. The H1B visas and the ability of foreign nationals to pay all cash for homes (with the help of their government of course) is forcing long time residents out all over the Bay Area, not just in SF.
SF has definitely lost what made it special for so long. It used to be a wonderful place to wander, but it seems to have lost its soul. Or maybe I just got old.
We build good software here in the Midwest too. Four bedroom home with land in best school district: $297K (median price); rents $800 a month. Join the internet of things coders, near where the things are made (5 auto plants with 600,000 jobs). Yeah, no beach or mountains, but we have everything you actually have time for: long walks, farm to table dining, 100's of breweries, locally made gelato, sports, concerts and plays, games, games, games....
12
Beaches, mountains (some of the finest climbing and skiing in the country), and good weather can make up for a lot of inconveniences. Why go on vacation when you already are in the place where people go to on their vacations?
2
Urban hipsters would rather die -- literally rather die -- than live anywhere as unhip and square as the Midwest.
1
As a resident of San Francisco, I agree there is a problem. You shouldn't have to work in tech to afford to live in this area. But as a tech worker myself, I want to point out the tremendous positive impact the industry has had on the area as well. The best and brightest from all over the world are coming to the Bay Area to work on revolutionary technology.
Technology companies are paying their workers well - and that is a good thing. I commend them for paying good wages and providing solid benefits. I wish more industries could and would do the same. As a college graduate, I have been able to comfortably - but not lavishly -support myself for the past 3 years in SF without any help. That's a good thing. I believe more college graduates - across industries - should have the opportunity and ability to do the same.
At the same time, we need to do more to make sure as the saying goes, all ships rise together.
Technology companies are paying their workers well - and that is a good thing. I commend them for paying good wages and providing solid benefits. I wish more industries could and would do the same. As a college graduate, I have been able to comfortably - but not lavishly -support myself for the past 3 years in SF without any help. That's a good thing. I believe more college graduates - across industries - should have the opportunity and ability to do the same.
At the same time, we need to do more to make sure as the saying goes, all ships rise together.
92
when you say the "best and brightest" you are refering to one subset of a very specific type of intelligence. Being a codeboy or girl does not make for a good society, it makes for a world filled with apps. The social intelligence of many of these folks is zip, they are entitled selfish and full of themselves, not community minded except the fake capitalistic community of a company that will dump them as soon as they reach 40.
12
Airbnb? Games? More social networking? Look at the hustlers photos and see what they're working on. Kids working on mostly 'stuff'.
2
The problem Sarah is that "the best and the brightest" have no respect for anything other than their point of view. As a native San Franciscan I've met 1000's of tech workers, that have come from all over the world, and unfortunately a similar value system reigns with these folks; that of materialism and technology which mainly does the scheming for the oligarchs to sell us more crap and lies. Young and old families are stressed with the high cost of living, more crabs in the bucket and the new tech crabs are complicit and cruel with no concept of the interconnectedness of all living things. They are basically taker worker bees mastered by the oligarchs incessant need for money and power. The earth cannot sustain this much longer. The long arm of history says we are about to face incredible adversity thanks to the short sightedness.
9
The true root of this problem is not the tech industry, as this myopic columnist would have you believe (though some like Mr. Keller are obviously a little out of touch with reality). While demand has driven up housing prices in San Francisco and the surrounding area, the true problem is on the supply-side. In the long-run strict land-use regulations and rent control policies, like those found in San Francisco, hurt those they intend to protect, locals and the poor. Increasing the supply will drive prices down and may even attract more of the productive types who are currently scared away by the high property costs. This will increase the city's productivity, increase the tax base, and increase the standard of living for all. The problem is needless bureaucracy and harmful government policies, not the tech industry.
2
A little on-line research shows a tale of two cities between San Francisco and New York City when it comes to rent control.
In NYC, buildings with fewer than six units are free-market. Upon lease expiration, if you don't like the tenant, you don't have to renew the lease.
In San Francisco, a 2-family houses is treated like a 200-unit building. Once that tenant is in you are stuck with him or her for life, with rent increased proscribed the the city (this year it is 1.6%).
True, the initial rent is market rent. But unless one really needs the money, who would lease the second unit in a 2-family home to anyone other than a friend or relative. Another factor is the courts are stacked against landords when it comes to evicting a non-paying tenant.
If SF rules were similar to NYC rules, my assumption is the number of available rentals would increase immensely. One article estimated up to 10,000 SF rentals remain vacant.
In NYC, buildings with fewer than six units are free-market. Upon lease expiration, if you don't like the tenant, you don't have to renew the lease.
In San Francisco, a 2-family houses is treated like a 200-unit building. Once that tenant is in you are stuck with him or her for life, with rent increased proscribed the the city (this year it is 1.6%).
True, the initial rent is market rent. But unless one really needs the money, who would lease the second unit in a 2-family home to anyone other than a friend or relative. Another factor is the courts are stacked against landords when it comes to evicting a non-paying tenant.
If SF rules were similar to NYC rules, my assumption is the number of available rentals would increase immensely. One article estimated up to 10,000 SF rentals remain vacant.
23
...who would lease the second unit in a 2-family home to anyone other than a friend or relative
Who? Nearly EVERYONE. Everyone tries to bleed every penny of out real estate these days since the Baby Boomers turned it into another get-rich-quick scheme.
Who? Nearly EVERYONE. Everyone tries to bleed every penny of out real estate these days since the Baby Boomers turned it into another get-rich-quick scheme.
2
Considering that there are 237,000 rental units currently in SF, and say each unit averages 750 sf, the total sf of rentals is 177,750,000....10,000 sf is really not that much comparatively to argue for that change in rent control
I think he means 10,000 unrented units in SF, not 10,000 square feet. Another estimate here said 30,000 units unrented. That's a big chunk of the 237,000. I know someone who lives in a 9-unit building where 6 are kept vacant, because the building is long paid off and the owner doesn't want to bother, so this is maybe not far-fetched.
I landed In SF in the late 70's. I have seen several boom & bust cycles but every time a new paradigm emerged it was brought on by people who loved the City. They may have come for their own reasons but they stayed and became part of a larger fabric. The culture here has always been dynamic and inclusive.
This time we are facing an influx of self serving, entitled runts who have no intention of contributing to the City's culture. They are here to hit it big. They will pose as the urban hipster for a while, swill a few $20 cocktails and then move on to the next shiny object. All the while ignoring the people around them in favor of whatever gadget is in their hand today. There is no sense that they are here for any reason having to do with the community at large. They have no sense of anything beyond themselves. Certainly no empathy for anyone deemed to be "other" which in itself is antithetical to the SF I know and love.
We are witnessing the death of a unique culture. This bubble too will burst but San Francisco has already sold it's soul and the people who were it's heart and soul, it's blood,muscle and bone won't be coming back.
This time we are facing an influx of self serving, entitled runts who have no intention of contributing to the City's culture. They are here to hit it big. They will pose as the urban hipster for a while, swill a few $20 cocktails and then move on to the next shiny object. All the while ignoring the people around them in favor of whatever gadget is in their hand today. There is no sense that they are here for any reason having to do with the community at large. They have no sense of anything beyond themselves. Certainly no empathy for anyone deemed to be "other" which in itself is antithetical to the SF I know and love.
We are witnessing the death of a unique culture. This bubble too will burst but San Francisco has already sold it's soul and the people who were it's heart and soul, it's blood,muscle and bone won't be coming back.
11
I blame it all on Peter Frampton. That Frampton Comes Alive album was recorded in San Francisco (He-lo San Fran-Cisco!) and it just warped the karma of the entire Bay Area. And they say horrible, over-played 1970s arena rock was purged by Punk. Some black magic is too strong to be defeated. Doobie Wah is pure unadulterated evil and will require stronger incantations and exorcisms to dislodge its demonic power. I hear it's on continuous auto-repeat play at sub-audible levels on all those Google busses.
5
Detroit should be an example for San Francisco to aspire to. Much more reasonably priced housing, less crowded, less traffic, and no annoying "Google buses".
12
brilliant, hilarious , thanks for the laugh
1
And democratic-controlled !
If I was a young millennial I would take a serious second and third look at Detroit. The city is being reborn. It has magnificent intact art deco skyscrapers downtown and solid, albeit neglected, housing opportunities nearby. Seriously, Detroit is on its way to a much better day and for those with the youth, energy, ambition and work ethic it's a very good bet. Go for it!
Shockingly it won't be all that long before your writer can write of the same question asked of doctors as was written about teachers and get the same answer. Thirty five hundred for a one bedroom apartment? That's dirt cheap and probably will be history by next week. It's little wonder Mayor Pothole is unavailable to explain how badly he's botched the operation of a once wonderful city and allowed it to be turned into a veritable nightmare for its longtime residents. He has no explanation! I and many I know look forward to the day when we hold Gavin Newsom accountable for handing off a fairly manageable city to a clueless bureaucrat totally star stuck by the lunch and dinner invitations he gets. Pothole Ed simply can't do enough for the Silicon Valley billionaires. Supervisor Peskin certainly doesn't have all the answers but at least someone finally stepped up to stick their finger in the hole in the dike. It's amazing how quickly this town has turned into a really miserable place to live.
12
I lived in San Francisco as a postdoc. It was a great place to live, already expensive but a walker's paradise with beautiful views, parks or interesting neighborhoods (some not safe). Lots of small shops sold hand made stuff, used books, interesting food, clubs had music, and there were many homeless - it was wonderful, horrible and full of life. It was amazing to see the variety of neighborhoods and microclimates: foggy areas to sunny areas on the same day at the same time on one walk. Neighborhoods with stately houses and renovated victorians were not so interesting and the streets were empty. People with money flocked to areas with, say music, and upgraded old houses, attracted expensive eateries, then shut down clubs because of the noise and priced out the the little stores and the "riff raff" to create a sanitized environment. San Francisco is exchanging one kind of poverty, people with little money scrambling to survive, for another kind of poverty, the poverty of exclusion: the artists go, the bums go, the variety goes and prices go way up.
8
With or without the bursting of any bubbles, the powers that be will eventually get their way on H1-B visas. So the tech bros are only going to have fun fun fun till Big Daddy takes their Teslas away.
2
Housing economics are to liberals as climate science is to conservatives - no matter what the science and the experts say, people just don't want to hear the truth if it goes against their personal interests and beliefs.
Your rent controlled 3 bedroom apartment that you live in by yourself is the problem, not millennials moving to "your" city who pay their fair share.
Your rent controlled 3 bedroom apartment that you live in by yourself is the problem, not millennials moving to "your" city who pay their fair share.
5
Spoken like a true regressive wingnut. YOU are the problem. Not me.
1
Plenty of affordable housing in Nebraska. If you can't afford to live somewhere, live where you can afford.
8
Silly statement. The job market there would not be diverse or large enough, or interesting enough, etc. for very many people. And its cold!
1
This is extremely insensitive and unsympathetic to those who are less fortunate to you!
3
That is very easy to say, td. However, if you are older, retired or on a fixed income, have family, friends, cultural and recreational institutions that have come to define you over decades (or a lifetime) in the city, being pushed out of your home into fly over country exile (and I note that you don't live in Nebraska td) is not a solution. The author failed to point out that many of the tech giants which have set up shop in SF have been given exemptions from paying various taxes, including the employee head tax that every other SF business pays. These greed heads, and their private equity investors, get special treatment here. Height limitations are under siege so that the tech aristocracy can build more 100 floor luxury condo buildings. The hills of this town will soon disappear behind a screen of glass. What is going on here is compounded by the pay-to-play nature of the Ed Lee administration, some members of which have already been indicted. Hopefully, more will follow. In the meantime, things are a lot more fraught here than the author suggests. San Francisco may not be everybody's favorite city for much longer. It certainly isn't "the city that knows how" anymore.
2
Zuckerberg should be stripped of one or two or three of his billions. For that matter so should Apple, Genentech, and of course Google. These billions should be re-distributed through state and federal tax rebates to the Californians affected by the spread of their companies hyper-wealth. Why? Because it is us who helped enrich these folks. They are not excessively gifted. They are not in any way "genius'" . They are extremely lucky on so many levels and precise and accurate emblems of a capitalism gone awry.
"Liberal" or not, they are emblematic of hyper-Republicanism in its worst case. Greed in turbo-drive, which eventually metastasizes and its its own.
"Liberal" or not, they are emblematic of hyper-Republicanism in its worst case. Greed in turbo-drive, which eventually metastasizes and its its own.
12
Ahhh....nothing like stealing from people you are envious of!!!!
4
If they are not so "genius", why aren't you building your own startup?
San Francisco and soon, Portland, will be destroyed, just like New York City. It has become a bland city for the fabulously wealthy, mere wealth just won't cut it. I lived in New York City in the early/mid 80's for close to 10 years. On a very meager salary, I was able to afford a studio in a nice area. My son, on the other hand, who earns far more than I did at his age (even adjusted for inflation), cannot afford New York and so lives at home, paying off his college loans and saving money to one day buy a home of his own. To be honest, there is no point to welcoming business to a city unless the corporations that come pay taxes and invest in their new location. Otherwise, all you have is a hyper expensive city with budget deficits. No thank you.
21
With apologies to the Jefferson Tesla, they're building this city on ones-and-ohs.
I prefer rock-n-roll.
I prefer rock-n-roll.
7
It doesn't feel good to be hoping for a downturn--especially when many of your friends work in the tech industry. But sadly, the teachers, servers, non-profit workers, etc., among us are simply being left out of this boom. I've lived between SF and LA my whole life, have lived in SF the last 6 years, and I've never seen it this bad. I rent and I live in fear of eviction--I think about it every day. ALL of the renters I know are facing the prospect of eviction, and most of us are lucky enough to make a decent salary. It's crazy.
A big part of the problem is the refusal in SF--and even more so in surrounding suburbs--to build enough housing. There's actually a lot of undeveloped infill land that could be used to build dense affordable and market-rate housing. As a leftist (and one who favors rent control, environmental protections, affordable housing, higher taxes on the rich, etc.), I do think housing policy is one area where the left has gone astray. There's not enough housing here. Period. We should build more AND improve protections for renters and the poor. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Beyond that, we can increase taxes on wealth, including repealing some or all of Prop 13, so we can pay for the things the city needs so desperately--more affordable housing, services for the homeless, better public transit. Income inequality is simply out of control here. Improving those service will help everyone, rich and poor (and whatever's left of the middle class) alike.
A big part of the problem is the refusal in SF--and even more so in surrounding suburbs--to build enough housing. There's actually a lot of undeveloped infill land that could be used to build dense affordable and market-rate housing. As a leftist (and one who favors rent control, environmental protections, affordable housing, higher taxes on the rich, etc.), I do think housing policy is one area where the left has gone astray. There's not enough housing here. Period. We should build more AND improve protections for renters and the poor. The two are not mutually exclusive.
Beyond that, we can increase taxes on wealth, including repealing some or all of Prop 13, so we can pay for the things the city needs so desperately--more affordable housing, services for the homeless, better public transit. Income inequality is simply out of control here. Improving those service will help everyone, rich and poor (and whatever's left of the middle class) alike.
342
Prop 13 will never be repealed. It came to be as a populist movement against large and consistent property tax increases that forced people from their homes - particularly middle class workers, teachers and others who did well enough to afford a home but not well enough to fund perpetual tax hikes. Today, it benefits the elderly and pensioners who've owned their homes for decades - and who pay a tiny fraction of what young technology workers would pay if they bought identical properties now.
The problem with affordable housing isn't that it's affordable - it's who gets it. When Santa Monica had the most stringent rent control in the country, most of the units that became vacant wound up rented to lawyers and doctors and professionals. Landlords, given no ability to raise rents - simply rented to the best credit risks who often put their own money into improving bargain basement apartments.
The same was true in NY - where six figure professionals held onto apartments for a pittance...until the city government woke up and realize that when landlords made less money on their properties, the city made less money in taxes...and those taxes go to fund the pensions of cops, firemen, teachers and other city workers.
Young technology workers in SF almost certainly pay some of the highest income taxes in the country - along with high costs of living...while seeing no benefits at all from Prop 13. There is no easy answer here.
The problem with affordable housing isn't that it's affordable - it's who gets it. When Santa Monica had the most stringent rent control in the country, most of the units that became vacant wound up rented to lawyers and doctors and professionals. Landlords, given no ability to raise rents - simply rented to the best credit risks who often put their own money into improving bargain basement apartments.
The same was true in NY - where six figure professionals held onto apartments for a pittance...until the city government woke up and realize that when landlords made less money on their properties, the city made less money in taxes...and those taxes go to fund the pensions of cops, firemen, teachers and other city workers.
Young technology workers in SF almost certainly pay some of the highest income taxes in the country - along with high costs of living...while seeing no benefits at all from Prop 13. There is no easy answer here.
3
Same, I work in law in SF and rent is not affordable. I was Ellis'd and ended up moving to Oakland.
1
That makes sense. Repeal Prop 13 so the "wealth" - you know, the family that owns a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment or a small house - to give more money to the homeless industry and a transit system that's hobbled by its own union. No surer way to encourage the middle class to stay in California than taxing them out of their homes.
I am a liberal across the board pretty much, but I will say that at least 75% of the blame belongs to California and specifically Bay Area voters and their NYMBYism. They time and time again refuse to allow more housing to be built in SF and in Silicon Valley, then rant that housing is too expensive. Yet the various cities happily allow more commercial real estate to be built. You cannot create thousands more jobs each year than housing units for three decades in a row without ALSO have a housing shortage.
10
I am completely baffled by the fact that people aren't able to understand that SF created this problem by artificially restricting the number of new housing units that were built over the last two or three decades. What's needed now is lots and lots of high density housing, but I am sure all the NIMBYs won't ever allow that.
Have you ever noticed that all "Progressive" cities eventually turn into 2 class societies? Only the rich and their servants can afford to live in these places. Do you wonder if maybe there's something wrong with this political movement??? I don't see it working out so well over time. For example consider the crime rate in Chicago or the homeless in NYC, SF, Seattle, etc.
1
Not really, plenty of cities haven't followed that pattern and plenty regressive cities (Republican that is) have done the exact same thing. Since Republican policies are intended to benefit only the rich, I'd expect conservative cities to become unaffordable a lot faster than liberal ones.
1
Many of us want the bubble to burst even though we are not in the market for a house.
The idea that now the US, Europe and now China simply print money to keep the multiple ponzi schemes going a bit longer is highly dangerous and destabilizing.
The Fed is responsible for this bubble pure and simple. And they will be responsible for the carnage it causes when it finally pops.
And as we saw in 2008 the response will be to simply pour more money into it.
The Fed and DC are now servants of the ponzis schemers and not the rest of us.
WHat we need is someone other than a socialist revolutionary (Sanders) or a narcissitic demogogue( Trump) to step up couragegously and say STOP! with the global Ponzi scheme before it takes out the worlds economy completely.
Americans have had enough but there is no sane candidate to represent us.
The idea that now the US, Europe and now China simply print money to keep the multiple ponzi schemes going a bit longer is highly dangerous and destabilizing.
The Fed is responsible for this bubble pure and simple. And they will be responsible for the carnage it causes when it finally pops.
And as we saw in 2008 the response will be to simply pour more money into it.
The Fed and DC are now servants of the ponzis schemers and not the rest of us.
WHat we need is someone other than a socialist revolutionary (Sanders) or a narcissitic demogogue( Trump) to step up couragegously and say STOP! with the global Ponzi scheme before it takes out the worlds economy completely.
Americans have had enough but there is no sane candidate to represent us.
3
Part of the problem is zoning restrictions that limit new development in San Francisco. The obvious problem is a shortage of housing, yet the interests of existing property owners lead them to oppose denser development, for example replacing triple deckers with midrises in neighborhoods like SOMA where high density makes sense. Building more housing units would increase supply and lower rents and purchase prices.
1
I lived in SF in the early 90's before the tech boom was in full swing. It was somewhat pricey but certainly not cost prohibitive. I have very fond memories of the city by the bay as an authentic and culturally diverse city made up of all classes of people living in all kinds of various colorful neighborhoods throughout the city. I lived in a Jr. one bedroom on Nob Hill right at the top of California Street with a bay window view of cable cars passing by. I paid about 800$ a month in 1993. I often wondered about the possibly returning one day, but after reading this I will wonder no more. I am not a tech person nor in a profession that makes me the kind of money that could sustain me in today's San Francisco. Darn.
6
Ha! a one bedroom with a bay window on Nob Hill? Conservatively, I'd say it is $7000 a month -- possibly more. The $3500 they quote here is for a rundown, older apartment in a characterless building in one of the less nice parts of the city. Or even across the Bay in Oakland.
In Oakland, in 1979 I paid $199.50 for a very large 1 bedroom, with a formal dining room that could have easily been a second bedroom or studio -- a bathroom with a separate DRESSING room -- crown moldings, wainscoting, built in twin china cabinets, the original 20s ICE BOX (in mint condition) -- a large charming kitchen -- huge bedroom with walk-in closets -- in a pristine 1920s art deco building. I remember thinking when I signed the lease "whew! that is a LOT of money". And it was, in 1979.
In Oakland, in 1979 I paid $199.50 for a very large 1 bedroom, with a formal dining room that could have easily been a second bedroom or studio -- a bathroom with a separate DRESSING room -- crown moldings, wainscoting, built in twin china cabinets, the original 20s ICE BOX (in mint condition) -- a large charming kitchen -- huge bedroom with walk-in closets -- in a pristine 1920s art deco building. I remember thinking when I signed the lease "whew! that is a LOT of money". And it was, in 1979.
2
That sounds like it was very pleasant, and I sympathize with you, but $800 was a lot of money in 1993.
The traffic situation rarely gets discussed. Most people on all sides of the issue seem to agree that we need more housing to accommodate all the people who want to live here.
I disagree. It is already too crowded. Neither our roads nor our public transit systems can cope with the numbers of people we are trying to cram into this tiny place. We have only two freeways. We have no subways. Cars, buses, taxis and Uber cars are all affected by gridlock. Yet we already have enough new housing in the pipeline for another 100k residents.
Sadly, people have the illusion that this will bring down housing costs. Any Manhattanite could tell them differently. It never gets cheaper, just more crowded.
Luckily for me, I am retired and don't have to travel during rush hour, otherwise I wouldn't be able to stand it here anymore.
I disagree. It is already too crowded. Neither our roads nor our public transit systems can cope with the numbers of people we are trying to cram into this tiny place. We have only two freeways. We have no subways. Cars, buses, taxis and Uber cars are all affected by gridlock. Yet we already have enough new housing in the pipeline for another 100k residents.
Sadly, people have the illusion that this will bring down housing costs. Any Manhattanite could tell them differently. It never gets cheaper, just more crowded.
Luckily for me, I am retired and don't have to travel during rush hour, otherwise I wouldn't be able to stand it here anymore.
15
No city (or country, for that matter) needs any more rich or poor, but at least the rich pay for the poor, as the middle class is tapped out.
1
If you read the article FSM you see that the rich do not pay for the poor. They want them to disappear.
But isn't this the way that all of America is going? Rich are richer, middle class and poor shut out.
7
I say with great pride that I was born and raised in San Francisco - a native son of the Sunset, product of Catholic schools and a Giants' fan until the very last day of the season when they broke my heart.
This San Francisco, which you describe in your article, is not the City in which I grew up; my parents stayed in their home for more than 30 years before they left a city that has become dirtier and more expensive. I live in a different part of the country - away from a place that has become a bastion for 'hipster' attitudes and wealth that has expanded well beyond Pacific Heights and Russian Hill but has yet to see the light of day in the Mission or the Excelsior.
My AHA moment - when I knew I had to leave (other than the outrageous rents and the super-high cost of living -- was when I ran into someone I knew who had just relocated to the City from back east. She told me she was living on "Pot Hill." Pot Hill I asked? do you mean the Potrero? she said yes. With a response that could only come from a cool, well-versed San Franciscan, I said "no one calls it Pot Hill and I suggest you don't either - no one, at least from MY City will know what you are saying."
This San Francisco, which you describe in your article, is not the City in which I grew up; my parents stayed in their home for more than 30 years before they left a city that has become dirtier and more expensive. I live in a different part of the country - away from a place that has become a bastion for 'hipster' attitudes and wealth that has expanded well beyond Pacific Heights and Russian Hill but has yet to see the light of day in the Mission or the Excelsior.
My AHA moment - when I knew I had to leave (other than the outrageous rents and the super-high cost of living -- was when I ran into someone I knew who had just relocated to the City from back east. She told me she was living on "Pot Hill." Pot Hill I asked? do you mean the Potrero? she said yes. With a response that could only come from a cool, well-versed San Franciscan, I said "no one calls it Pot Hill and I suggest you don't either - no one, at least from MY City will know what you are saying."
6
I definitely feel the presence of thousands of matching 27-year-olds throughout SF. There's a mass tone-deafness that's invaded the city. The ridiculous "open letter" the article cites would not have generated such a passionate response if it hadn't given a blunt, unabashed voice to the attitude of oblivious entitlement these new citizens exude, everywhere they go. (Thank you, Justin Keller, for putting it on the table.)
34
I work in tech, and I'm rooting for a tech slowdown. While engineers at Google, Facebook, and Twitter may make $250k a year, many of us don't. I never figured while getting a PhD in engineering that ten years later I'd be back living with roommates to afford my rent. When my lease is up, I'm out of here. It's just not worth it.
43
Yeah I'm with you. Most of the engineers in the city make around $150k and that's not much when you have to pay $5000 rent and have a couple of kids..
But I think SF housing is topping.. there is definitely slow down now and a lot of people are moving away. It won't get affordable without a major bust, but it might get a bit better in the next year or two..
But I think SF housing is topping.. there is definitely slow down now and a lot of people are moving away. It won't get affordable without a major bust, but it might get a bit better in the next year or two..
2
Well, at least it's not Manhattan!
Housing economics are to liberals as climate science is to conservatives - no matter what the science and the experts say, people just don't want to hear the truth if it goes against their personal interests and beliefs.
You're rent controlled 3 bedroom apartment that you live in by yourself is the problem, not millennials moving to "your" city who pay their fair share.
You're rent controlled 3 bedroom apartment that you live in by yourself is the problem, not millennials moving to "your" city who pay their fair share.
5
I do have rent control, but I just went looking for my other 3 bedrooms and couldn't find them. Still just a studio. What was your point again?
The city of San Fran and its environs clearly and convincingly demonstrate the "do what I say, not what I do ethos".
I need not elaborate what I mean by that. A Metro Area packed with folks on the left of the spectrum but who are consistently on the upper end of the income scale.
It's the epitome of talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Beautiful city by the way but a disaster in so many ways.
I need not elaborate what I mean by that. A Metro Area packed with folks on the left of the spectrum but who are consistently on the upper end of the income scale.
It's the epitome of talking out of both sides of one's mouth.
Beautiful city by the way but a disaster in so many ways.
3
So many of us longtime residents are NOT at the upper end of the income scale. Like many who have posted here,few can afford to move to another apartment, much less buy a condominium or home in San Francisco County anymore. And, we do not live in "San Fran."
1
I stand corrected - long-term residents are likely NOT at the upper end. But I'm sure that you are aware that long-terms are losing ground extremely fast.
"Frisco" is considered derogatory but not "San Fran".
Be well.
"Frisco" is considered derogatory but not "San Fran".
Be well.
Additionally, ponder this, in San Fran, and other progressive bastions one cannot buy alcohol or tobacco products without a photo ID. But to Vote - no ID needed.
To be wealthy and progressive is fine as long as it is with someone else's
money.
To be wealthy and progressive is fine as long as it is with someone else's
money.
Focusing on San Francisco alone unfortunately provides the mistaken impression that only San Francisco is detrimentally affected. In fact, much of the Bay Area, especially the East Bay which includes Berkeley and Oakland is adversely affected by the so-called "tech boom." Home prices and rentals have skyrocketed everywhere. What used to be conventional "listings" are now auctions carefully orchestrated by real estate agents. Bidders with conventional financing are customarily shut out of the market by all cash offers or bidders aligned with a few "preferred" lenders. Most distressing is the fact that much of the "tech boom" is illusory, consisting of over-valued and hyped unicorns like Air BnB, Pinterest, Lyft et al. Privately traded and bankrolled by venture capitalists and hedge funds, these companies are "success stories" only as long as their investors remained convinced they have marketable value. When that convictions becomes unsustainable, their value evaporates and the bubble bursts. Is it any wonder why most people in the Bay Area want the bubble to burst to end this farcical and painful charade once and for all?
467
Don't hold your breath. I moved to Eugene, OR last October, never been happier. There is a local tech industry and apparently the regional development council or something came up with the idea of branding the Willamette Valley the "Silicon Shire" which to me sound like a cute way of saying "we like tech jobs and it rains a lot". Otherwise you've got a big university, safe streets, and an arts scene. A vibrant hub of activity with its thumb on the pulse of the nation it is not. More jeunesse étude than jeunesse dorée.
1
Rents and housing prices didn't drop durably after the 2000 or 2008 busts, a lesson which seems to have been lost on most Bay Area residents. They also seem to have missed that the laid-off engineers didn't leave town, they used their spare time to built new tech products which roared back as billion dollar companies, ending the bust. This housing shortage is caused by 40 years of population growth which has been twice as large as housing stock growth, this predated the tech boom, and it would survive the tech boom even if all the techies left town. It will go on forever, unless SF residents figure out the laws of supply and demand and bring housing construction back into line with population growth, or else introduce China-style residence permits which end population growth. Adam Smith figured out 200 years ago that structural scarcity of a good ensures that its price will rise indefinitely. SF needs to outgrow its voodoo urban development delusion for this crisis to end.
2
r.e cash buyers shutting out those who need to buy with a mortgage. I'm 50 miles north of S.F. and experienced this personally in 2011/2012....had an excellent job and credit rating, enough cash for 50% down, and a preapproved mortgage, naively thought that buying a place would be relatively easy as it was for me in 1997 (when I bought with 0% down and a GI Bill loan). Made full price offers on several houses but in every case was ignored as there were 100% cash bids, many from flippers and speculators. Gave up after a year and prices have nearly doubled in the meantime so buying no longer makes sense even if I could afford it....so yes, I'd be very happy to see Housing Bubble 2.0 pop, though wonder if I'd be shut out by cash buyers again.
The "tech boom' producing what ? Numerous apps ( most of which are fads ) e.g. flappy bird and how does Twitter make money ? why it is nothing more than an ad agency as is Facebook .... real value of these enterprises ?
Were is the long term benefit to society, the continued product improvement, the employment opprtuities on a large scale. The fact is all of these companies are subject to fickle tastes of individuals who have no real investment in the way of $. Yes, Facebook my have eyeballs and a commitment of sorts by consumers but no more than free T.V.. Uber a glorified taxi service what happens when we really do get driverless cars ?
Were is the long term benefit to society, the continued product improvement, the employment opprtuities on a large scale. The fact is all of these companies are subject to fickle tastes of individuals who have no real investment in the way of $. Yes, Facebook my have eyeballs and a commitment of sorts by consumers but no more than free T.V.. Uber a glorified taxi service what happens when we really do get driverless cars ?
24
As in SF, the Portland OR politicians caved to the booming interests & cut deals to give MORE to firms & folks that already have the MOST. Why? As a Bay Area natives who tried to return after 12 years in Portland, we want to go back to Portland to escape the Bay Area once again. It remains to be seen if we can.
12
To God's ear, hear, hear!
The tech bubble with active support of developer interests and its captive political accomplices have ruined this city which has at once become more expensive, less diverse, less friendly and markedly less colorful.
I've lived here for 40 years and lest you think me just an elder mourning the "good ole days" of the '70's, I just as soon party as we did in 1999.
Why I'd even settle for 2004
The tech bubble with active support of developer interests and its captive political accomplices have ruined this city which has at once become more expensive, less diverse, less friendly and markedly less colorful.
I've lived here for 40 years and lest you think me just an elder mourning the "good ole days" of the '70's, I just as soon party as we did in 1999.
Why I'd even settle for 2004
16
I couldn't agree more. Things change, but things have changed dramatically in just the past five years. The feel and tone of the city is way off.
And of course do not forget that only 11% of residents are able to own a home in SF, a 250K down payment and qualifying household income of over 200K.
13
20% down means that "home" is about $1.2 million dollars -- for starter home, maybe 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, zero lot line (no yard at all and no garage). A basementless, 90 year old shack basically.
"It’s practically a ubiquitous sentiment here" says city Supervisor Aaron Peskin. How might we get a more objective sense of whether this a widely shared view, or perhaps one driven by political elite / media opinion?
The only poll I know of that attempts to assess if/how people blame the tech industry for the issues cited was commissioned by Mayor Ed Lee's re-election campaign a year ago. According to the SF Chronicle's summary of the results, "most San Franciscans aren’t mad at the tech industry about the city’s lack of affordable housing, according to a survey of likely voters." http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/San-Franciscans-don-t-hate-tech-i....
The only poll I know of that attempts to assess if/how people blame the tech industry for the issues cited was commissioned by Mayor Ed Lee's re-election campaign a year ago. According to the SF Chronicle's summary of the results, "most San Franciscans aren’t mad at the tech industry about the city’s lack of affordable housing, according to a survey of likely voters." http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/San-Franciscans-don-t-hate-tech-i....
4
Welcome to life in Manhattan.
5
The difference is that SF was built fairly densely before cars, but outside the city was not. All the five boroughs of NYC were built up based mostly on subways and are all fairly dense. Only one direction out of SF is land, not three directions connected by public transit that costs no more to go to the far reaches of the boroughs. Living out of San Francisco to the north or east means expensive commutes on mass transit, or impossible driving. The two situations have some things in common but not others. Both suffer from too much increased population and too many super high paying jobs, and the rest paid at normal levels, and also as has been mentioned here tons of Chinese and Russian and Middle Eastern etc.oligarch money buying up property and then often not even living in it.
Lived in The City 22 years. Glad I moved. Used to be a great place. Apparently, no longer.
4
Libertarian ideals in the tech sector have turned a generation of young, would-be philanthropists into the forces we see today in the Bay Area: exploitation instead of stewardship, an almost total lack of empathy, and a loss of the vital socioeconomic diversity that originally made the place so special.
41
Well said. As a forty year resident what's most noticeable about the many changes in the Bay Area is the loss of community. The heart and soul has been removed and replaced by an operating system.
3
Yup, all those mean and greedy Republicans are ruining yet another city with their selfish ways...oh wait, you likely couldn't find a Republican in SF if you tried! Oh well, new narrative...
9
Wrong. There are a lot of tech and venture capital people who are Libertarians. They espouse Ayn Randian "free market" policies and massive tax cuts for the ultra wealthy at any cost. To them if you're not fabulously wealthy then something is wrong with you and you should be physically separated from them so they don't have to see you. See Tim Draper and his six Californias proposal for how these people think.
These people are neither democrats nor progressives.
These people are neither democrats nor progressives.
5
I love San Francisco and could not afford to return even under modest circumstances.
Unlike historic bubble bursts, the coming San Francisco burst may not be financial. San Francisco’s iteration of this boom is elective. Tech people can locate anywhere. Indeed relocate they do to Portland or Austin. Techies mine intellectual property not oil or gold from beneath the City’s ground; their products traffic by microwave; they needn’t locate in San Francisco where ships and train routes meet. They chose San Francisco for its beauty, its tech synergy, its cache. Those things exist. But the techies who arrive to savor them are so many, their numbers so overwhelming, the nature of the place is changing.
San Francisco is losing the appealing properties that were its draw. Never mind too many cars; there are too many bikes. Cool reverse snobbery wears thin. People who can afford paying a million bucks for a 600 square foot condo can equally afford paying their millions for mansions elsewhere. No one smart enough to make it in this new San Francisco ever has to be in San Francisco to make it – and no one that smart can help being smart about it.
Yes, I think too little attention has been paid to venture capital’s role in underwriting the expensive city’s high cost of living, and if it dries, which surely it will, some costs might shrink as quickly as they exploded. But mostly, I think people with the resources to choose anything, economically or creatively, simply will.
Unlike historic bubble bursts, the coming San Francisco burst may not be financial. San Francisco’s iteration of this boom is elective. Tech people can locate anywhere. Indeed relocate they do to Portland or Austin. Techies mine intellectual property not oil or gold from beneath the City’s ground; their products traffic by microwave; they needn’t locate in San Francisco where ships and train routes meet. They chose San Francisco for its beauty, its tech synergy, its cache. Those things exist. But the techies who arrive to savor them are so many, their numbers so overwhelming, the nature of the place is changing.
San Francisco is losing the appealing properties that were its draw. Never mind too many cars; there are too many bikes. Cool reverse snobbery wears thin. People who can afford paying a million bucks for a 600 square foot condo can equally afford paying their millions for mansions elsewhere. No one smart enough to make it in this new San Francisco ever has to be in San Francisco to make it – and no one that smart can help being smart about it.
Yes, I think too little attention has been paid to venture capital’s role in underwriting the expensive city’s high cost of living, and if it dries, which surely it will, some costs might shrink as quickly as they exploded. But mostly, I think people with the resources to choose anything, economically or creatively, simply will.
9
With all the money being generated in San Francisco, if the city isn't running an insane budget surplus than something has run afoul. Perhaps it's a combination of management and corruption.
How are these technology companies not paying for using taxpayer-paid bus stops? Whatever the cost, it wouldn't even be noticeable to the bottom line of these technology companies. How much does Google pay to operate its fleet of private jets? And they can't afford to pay the city for using bus stops?
However, Justin Keller's comments as cold as they are, are taken a little out of context. If you have been to San Francisco lately, you know how bad the homeless situation has become. San Francisco's inability to close the SRO's has created a thriving homeless population with drugs, public defecation, and prostitution running rampant. The homeless are citizens and have rights but there has to be some sense of maintaining public decency.
How are these technology companies not paying for using taxpayer-paid bus stops? Whatever the cost, it wouldn't even be noticeable to the bottom line of these technology companies. How much does Google pay to operate its fleet of private jets? And they can't afford to pay the city for using bus stops?
However, Justin Keller's comments as cold as they are, are taken a little out of context. If you have been to San Francisco lately, you know how bad the homeless situation has become. San Francisco's inability to close the SRO's has created a thriving homeless population with drugs, public defecation, and prostitution running rampant. The homeless are citizens and have rights but there has to be some sense of maintaining public decency.
11
Actually they're not, primarily because the city spends an enormous amount of money on social services -- just as Bloomberg did in NYC.
1
This reminds me of Greenwich Village being the mecca for artists and then the rich people moved in and took it over. It is so sad. But SF has been unapproachable for a very long time. You couldn't afford it 20 years ago. So, either non-profit organizations are going to have to build some affordable housing (they do this in Cambridge, MA and other places, I am sure) or they are going to have to improve areas around the city that are worn down now. Ideally, I would love to see them put affordable or low-income housing right in the middle of SF. Usually, they pick wonderful architects for these projects and build great buildings.
12
I lived in the East Bay 35 years ago. Beautiful area, great climate, but it was impossibly expensive THEN -- I can't even manage today. I couldn't even consider living in San Francisco at the time, so I lived in "downscale" Oakland. Today even Oakland is crazy expensive (not as bad as SF, but very bad by a national standard).
Homeless folks are bad enough, but this is displacing educated middle class families and workers, who can't afford the high rents. And little has been said beyond one photo here of the constant, 24/7 traffic jams. You can't GET anywhere, it takes hours to commute stuck in your car. There are beautiful parks and forests, but good luck navigating the bumper to bumper weekend traffic there and back.
Unless you are super-wealthy, the QUALITY of life in the East Bay is devastatingly bad.
Homeless folks are bad enough, but this is displacing educated middle class families and workers, who can't afford the high rents. And little has been said beyond one photo here of the constant, 24/7 traffic jams. You can't GET anywhere, it takes hours to commute stuck in your car. There are beautiful parks and forests, but good luck navigating the bumper to bumper weekend traffic there and back.
Unless you are super-wealthy, the QUALITY of life in the East Bay is devastatingly bad.
3
Every small homeowner has a stake in keeping the prices high -- renters no longer have these conversations with their home-owning friends.
1