San Francisco Housing and the Technology Industry

Covar

Covar

I haven't heard to much about this outside of the web, but has anyone been paying attention to the housing protests in San Francisco?

Basically SF housing prices are skyrocketing and the blame seems to be falling on the Tech Industry. Lately protests seem to have moved from blocking the company commuter buses to protesting in front of employee's private homes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffrey...-are-fighting-economics-not-google-employees/

http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/20...y-dancing-protesters-in-s-f-mission-district/

http://mashable.com/2014/04/06/google-ventures-kevin-rose-san-francisco-protesters/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/...onal-as-second-googler-is-confronted-at-home/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/11/us-protests-technology-sf-idUSBREA3A1IK20140411

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-techbus-protest-sanfrancisco-idUSBRE9BJ1BC20131220
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
I almost hurt my eyes rolling them so hard when San Francisco was called "one of the world's most valuable cultural treasures." San Francisco is literally caked in human excrement. Or was. Maybe the gentrification is/will be cleaning that up.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Living in Houston gives me a special perspective on things like this. San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkley all basically fit inside the inner loop here. As far as I am concerned they are the same city. That makes San Francisco a neighborhood, and guess what? Some neighborhoods are really expensive. Who cares though? You can live in Oakland and only be 5 miles from San Fran. Even San Jose isn't that far. The average commute in my city is 26 miles each way. People over there need to grow up and buy where they can afford. Then work to make those areas nicer.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
Why does being wealthier mean you have less of a right to live somewhere?
Click to expand...
If I may channel the thoughts of the ones who believe so, it is "because there is no possible virtuous path to wealth - all riches are stolen, all greater wealth is tricked from the lesser, all luxury is brought on the backs of the downtrodden, the unlucky, and those who just want a fair chance. If we had our way, their riches would be forcibly stripped from them and transferred to the poor, who they have so harmed, by the avenue of a powerful and benevolent all-encompassing government - but we still don't have the wherewithal to bring this about. Not yet. So for now we must simply make do with actions like this."
 
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

stienman said:
When the people who already live there make rules and regulations that discourage the wealthy from moving in, I suppose.
Click to expand...
So where are the SF version of the Koch brothers who can coerce, cajole, threaten, or blackmail the current officials into seeing things their way? Or barring that, pour money into candidates who will?
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
stienman said:
The geography of the area (water on three sides, few bridges, etc) and the density (5x houston) means that even a 5-10 mile commute is an hour or three every single day there and back.

It's not comparable to Houston.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, although that begs the question "why would you want to live in such a god awful place? New York and Chicago have similarly absurdly priced central neighborhoods, but they are also well supplied with quality(ish) public transportation. Living in an undrivable city with no public transportation just seems like a really poor choice, and I don't have much sympathy for that.

That being said, your statement essentially says, "You, teacher, are only going to make maybe $60k per year. This means you have the choice between sharing a two bedroom apartment with three other people, or you waste 2 hours a day driving (and $9k per year for the car) so you can afford a small home or larger apartment well away from the city." It's because they want to give people in the lower class a place in their city that they are making a lot of these rules (also for many other more selfish reasons, but this is the only one I can broadly agree with, and only after a little arm twisting anyway).
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I am saying. This is no different from any other high density metroplex. Teachers in NYC or Chicago don't get to live in Manhattan or the Loop. Hell, they can barely afford to live in the ritzy areas in Houston. As for the desire to give the lower class a place in the city, that's nice on paper, but its a blatantly unsustainable and token gesture. There is no possible way that they can fill the demand for low-cost housing inside SF, so at best they can allow some small % of people a place there. Then its a question of who gets these high demand places? It creates a system not unlike the rent-controlled apts of NYC, where having access to an artificially low-priced housing unit is just another form of wealth.

I just don't have a lot of sympathy for this I guess. The only reason the city hasn't imploded on itself due to a dearth of middle to low class is that people are bending over backwards to stay there, spending 60% of their income on rent or 3 hours a day on their commute. And why? Because its a cool city? My generation has horrendous priorities and it shows when they cry over issues like this. You want to know what's cool? Affordable housing, no state income tax, and a very stable job market.

In conclusion: Leave San Francisco. Move to Houston.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Not so sure about Austin, also known as the San Francisco of the south. It also has really high property values and horrendous traffic. Which is why, when I graduated from UT, I ended up moving to Houston even though I loved Austin. It just wasn't a place I could build a life. So I moved somewhere I could.

ed: Misunderstood what Gas was saying. Fwiw you can actually live really nicely in Houston for 60k.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
You can get a lot more bang for your buck, and have a higher standard of living in NacaNowhere Hell. I mean, let's face it - none of us here are exactly gadfly socialites who need exclusive clubs and ritzy night life. Broadband in Bryan is just as good as it is in Irving (which actually isn't saying much from what I hear from my friends in Irving).
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

So, I can only approach this from my own NYC-area-ish perspective, but the problem (aside from NIMBY-ism in general) is really tied to the lack of housing supply and the inability (or unwillingness) of city and business leaders to invest in creating secondary city centers. Manhattan's position as the center of everything has a lot of historical and infrastructural inertia behind it, but one reason why places like DUMBO and Jersey City are flourishing is because the locals in each went out of their way to grow those areas as semi-self-sufficient zones that catered to a wide(r) range of socioeconomic players.

Some of this is historical accident (uncomfortable but true, Jersey City would simply not be where it is today had 9/11 not happened), but for the most part locals have been able to use this to create strong non-Manhattan neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, both of those areas are also starting to become priced-out thanks to even relatively affluent people no longer being able to afford Manhattan but needing to stay close. :confused:

A friend of mine thinks that a large part of this is due to the perception (which may or may not be true) that New York City is one of the few places on the planet where real estate investment purely on price movement is a near sure thing, and every time there is a notable financial or social upswing or downswing somewhere else on the planet, foreign investors stick their money in NYC housing. He's noted (he's Chinese-American and pays very close attention to Chinese politics) that every time there's a shakedown in China as someone comes into power and starts ethics/corruption investigations of their political rivals, there is a jump in NYC housing prices.
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

SpecialKO said:
So, I can only approach this from my own NYC-area-ish perspective, but the problem (aside from NIMBY-ism in general) is really tied to the lack of housing supply and the inability (or unwillingness) of city and business leaders to invest in creating secondary city centers. Manhattan's position as the center of everything has a lot of historical and infrastructural inertia behind it, but one reason why places like DUMBO and Jersey City are flourishing is because the locals in each went out of their way to grow those areas as semi-self-sufficient zones that catered to a wide(r) range of socioeconomic players.

Some of this is historical accident (uncomfortable but true, Jersey City would simply not be where it is today had 9/11 not happened), but for the most part locals have been able to use this to create strong non-Manhattan neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, both of those areas are also starting to become priced-out thanks to even relatively affluent people no longer being able to afford Manhattan but needing to stay close. :confused:

A friend of mine thinks that a large part of this is due to the perception (which may or may not be true) that New York City is one of the few places on the planet where real estate investment purely on price movement is a near sure thing, and every time there is a notable financial or social upswing or downswing somewhere else on the planet, foreign investors stick their money in NYC housing. He's noted (he's Chinese-American and pays very close attention to Chinese politics) that every time there's a shakedown in China as someone comes into power and starts ethics/corruption investigations of their political rivals, there is a jump in NYC housing prices.
Click to expand...
Truth. I was going to add the recent up-swings of Hoboken and Long Island City along with Jersey City, but the point is still the same.
 
Tress

Tress

ITT: People who don't live near SF and have probably never been to SF talk about how horrible it is based on... information from a spreadsheet.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
stienman said:
tl;dr: Some people want to live in SF, but they don't want to pay the high cost of living there. They are hoping to convince the government to create a situation where market forces are reversed.

All they need to do is decrease police funding. There are currently nearly 3,000 officers serving the SFPD and Sheriff's department. If they decimate that and retain only the 300 lowest paid officers then housing costs will plummet. As a bonus, they'd be saving well over $450 million dollars a year!

Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Even better, open up a restaurant, call it "The Itis."
 
Celt Z

Celt Z

stienman said:
tl;dr: Some people want to live in SF, but they don't want to pay the high cost of living there. They are hoping to convince the government to create a situation where market forces are reversed.

All they need to do is decrease police funding. There are currently nearly 3,000 officers serving the SFPD and Sheriff's department. If they decimate that and retain only the 300 lowest paid officers then housing costs will plummet. As a bonus, they'd be saving well over $450 million dollars a year!

Problem solved.
Click to expand...
Oh, we did that! It's called Camden. And look how well that turned out! :facepalm:
(By the way, this makes Jeremy Renner's character in American Hustle hilarious to me every time I watch it.)
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Tress said:
ITT: People who don't live near SF and have probably never been to SF talk about how horrible it is based on... information from a spreadsheet.
Click to expand...
So you match our assumptions with your own? I've been to SF a number of times, and its a beautiful area. I've also had a job relocate to Silicon Valley and I chose not to follow it because of the housing and tax situation over there (aside from the fact that any company in dire financial straits that decides to move from Houston to Menlo Park is not very smart.)

Anyways, that aside, how would you suggest we get information on housing prices other than a "spreadsheet"? It's the only way you would want to look at housing prices. It's not like living there would give us a special insight.
 
Eriol

Eriol

First of all: it's complicated.

That being said, the reason people keep living/commuting to big cities is that that's where the jobs are. Even though the commute is horrid, and things are expensive, etc, the majority of jobs are in the big city, and probably in the big commercial districts, which are high-density, hard to get to, etc. Yes having many smaller centres helps, but you still have big problems with getting people to where their jobs are. Some jobs are more mobile, but even if they are, you are telling people to move across the country for a chance at a job. Until they need to move again.

It's emotions wrapped up with pragmatism, wrapped up with differing concepts of what's "just" there as well. Good luck!
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
It's not just a matter of big cities, its a matter of dysfunctional big cities. Places like Boston or SF. They are absurdly, comically expensive to live in and don't have a diversified economy. Moving is difficult and risky, but plenty of people have done it. I've done it multiple times and I'll probably do it again. I had to move from Austin, one of the coolest cities in the country, to Houston, the largest city in the country with no tourism industry. And in the end I was really happy I did it, because I had a stable career and a cheap place to live. Sure, I don't have kids, so that makes it easier, but if I had kids I would probably be even more likely to move because their financial security is preeminent.

I'm not saying moving is easy, but I don't see an alternative for people over there. As for justice? Spit in one hand and beg for justice in the other and see which comes first. Its not great, but its life. And the sooner people accept the realities around them the sooner they can actually change them.



Just looking at a "spreadsheet" view of the housing market there and....good lord.

http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/

Just....good lord. Flee. Stay far away from that market. That is a disaster waiting to happen.


ed: And here's a good analysis of the quartiles

http://vanguardsf.com/stats-SanFrancisco.php

The bottom 25% ends at almost around 550k. That's insane.

ed2: I should add that the only reason I am saying flee is if the public trans is so bad that living in Oakland or San Jose is not an option. That's what differentiates SF bay from Manhattan/NYC.
 
Last edited:
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
I ninja edited you. The difference is in Public Trans. According to Steinman living in Oakland or San Jose isn't a viable alternative because it will take you hours to get into San Fran. That's very different from Manhattan.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Necronic said:
As for justice? Spit in one hand and beg for justice in the other and see which comes first. Its not great, but its life. And the sooner people accept the realities around them the sooner they can actually change them.
Click to expand...
There's a reason I didn't use the term "social justice" in my OP. Because IMO Justice is 1 thing only. And it's not often in accordance with our Laws. But it had to be alluded to one way or another.

Another reason it's hard is the aspect of people already being there. There's a big difference from somebody seeing the situation somewhere and saying "I'm NOT moving there because it's a disaster" and people who have been there the whole time seeing their neighbourhood go to crap, one way or another. There's the problem in saying "if somewhere's bad, leave." See Detroit. They did. Now it's a fraction of its former size. And still bad. While moving is the solution for some, there also needs to be some types of solutions for those who stay as well. Saying "go elsewhere" isn't really a solution, it's just making it somebody else's problem.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
I see what you're saying about Detroit, but this is different. Detroit died for a lot of reasons, but not because it got too rich. People in Detroit had to choose between staying in the failing city of Detroit or leaving Detroit and losing any equity they still had there (since no one would buy a house). The downside of leaving SF is far more ephemeral, if you have a house you aren't losing money on it. Likewise, leaving SF isn't going to kill it. It may push them to build better infrastructure though.

edit: To further clarify my point though. Its not that I don't have sympathy for people seeing their town change in a way that can no longer work for them. Having to decide whether or not to leave is a difficult challenge and I really do empathize with that.

What I do NOT have sympathy for are the people who don't even consider leaving an option. There are a lot of reasons to take it off the table, but it seems like a lot of people don't even consider it as an alternative.

ed2: The more I look at it it seems like living in Oakland and commuting to SF is pretty easy. Why aren't more people moving to Oakland or Berkley? Housing prices there are completely reasonable and the commute looks like its only 30 minutes or so. That's really not bad at all.
 
Last edited:
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
I ninja edited you. The difference is in Public Trans. According to Steinman living in Oakland or San Jose isn't a viable alternative because it will take you hours to get into San Fran. That's very different from Manhattan.
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but the same problem persists. Pubtrans just helped hold it off until recently because you could always move to somewhere else within the pubtrans network. We've reached the point where that's not necessarily true anymore, and unlike in the 80s when it was the affluent leaving because they could easily afford a car or a full-fledged train ticket, low-income residents are having to make the unpleasant choice between substantially higher rent or moving way out and buying a car and actually spending hours in transit.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
Is it really that bad all the way out on like Rockaway, Long Island, Jersey, or Staten? I assumed those places were still affordable.

Edit: Looking at the prices on Zillow it doesn't seem that bad. All 4 of those have median prices under 400., Jersey is only 270. Which is still really high for Texas, but this is NYC. Well...technically it's Jersey.
 
SpecialKO

SpecialKO

Necronic said:
Is it really that bad all the way out on like Rockaway, Long Island, Jersey, or Staten? I assumed those places were still affordable.

Edit: Looking at the prices on Zillow it doesn't seem that bad. All 4 of those have median prices under 400., Jersey is only 270. Which is still really high for Texas, but this is NYC. Well...technically it's Jersey.
Click to expand...
They're not bad in comparison to the rest of NYC, no, but that's not really saying much. Keep in mind, a lot of the truly convenient areas in Northern NJ and Long Island are getting rapidly much more expensive. Staten Island is sort of iffy, because a lot of people there own already.

Don't forget, it's not the upper income brackets that are being to forced to move further out, it's people in the $50-60K HHI range (and little to no assets). They're not affording a $400K house unless they truly have no other financial obligations.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
True enough, 50-60 probably can't buy there. Or at least, not easily (they could find a fixer upper in a lower-quartile). But they could probably rent for reasonable amounts.

But still, your point stands, and it looks like the data backs it. People are already leaving those areas. And where are they heading?

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/monday-map-migration-personal-income

The question is if businesses are following. I found a piece on the NYT about this stating that positions in that 50-60k range are being moved out of Manhattan, which makes a lot of sense since it's ridiculous to pay NYC overhead when the job could be done in Nebraska just as easily:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/b...t-as-firms-cut-costs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
 
Chad Sexington

Chad Sexington

GasBandit said:
If I may channel the thoughts of the ones who believe so, it is "because there is no possible virtuous path to wealth - all riches are stolen, all greater wealth is tricked from the lesser, all luxury is brought on the backs of the downtrodden, the unlucky, and those who just want a fair chance. If we had our way, their riches would be forcibly stripped from them and transferred to the poor, who they have so harmed, by the avenue of a powerful and benevolent all-encompassing government - but we still don't have the wherewithal to bring this about. Not yet. So for now we must simply make do with actions like this."
Click to expand...
What are you quoting, here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top