San Francisco mass exodus

[Finswedeway]

Rent control hurts the low income earners, because, with forced low prices, people renting the apartments out have no reason to want to maintain the quality of the house, as it would just be money wasted.

[Chernoslavia]

This problem could be solved so simply. Rent control or rent stabilization for everyone and stop building luxary housing for rich people. There problem solved but politicians have to make it so complicated.

Yeah just put even more regulations....

[Genivaria]

For some reason I assumed this was going to be about rising sea levels...

[San Lumen]

Rent control hurts the low income earners, because, with forced low prices, people renting the apartments out have no reason to want to maintain the quality of the house, as it would just be money wasted.

Well then how about you stop building luxury housing only the rich can afford. It you only built housing the average person could afford their wouldn't be a shortage.

[Parhe]

The main problem with the Bay Area is the reluctance to build housing outside the city of San Francisco and the blame falls largely on its residents, not builders or renters. The combined Bay Area should be building almost two hundred thousand housing units to cope with its job gains and population increases. While, quite obviously, this cannot be done all at once, the region in 2017 only issued just under twenty seven thousand building permits for any type of housing. That is pitiful for an urban area that size and less than half the number of building permits issued in smaller, albeit faster growing, Dallas-Fort Worth and less still than even smaller Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, and Seattle-none of which are facing housing crisis anywhere near the level of San Francisco and San Jose. Yes, the Bay Area is quite denser than any of those metros but lets not kid ourselves into thinking there is no space for more housing: the Bay Area is no Paris, Seoul, or even New York.

NIMBYism in San Francisco is surprisingly, or perhaps unsurprisingly, high in such a progressive metro and is what ultimately makes the city unaffordable to the vast majority of workers. Current residents, poor and rich alike, are shielded from the pains of rapid increased in property value by proposition 13, which restricts annual increased in the value of property at which it is taxed. This stupid proposition enables NIMBYism throughout California but especially the Bay Area because crazy increases in the value of the property of current renters and home owners do not cause much of a dent to their wallets when it comes time for paying taxes but can payoff massively when said homes are sold at updated assessed values. This motivates people to shortsightedly fight against new housing on large scales, as new construction on such a scale is believed to either lower property values-either by increasing supply or by "ruining the historic character" of neighborhoods-or slow down increases, aka payoffs when current owners decide to finally sell their homes and move or retire elsewhere. When builders or property owners do try to build affordable housing or increase low income rental units in San Francisco (or even some other nearby municipalities), surrounding residents will complain to the city to launch an investigation, resulting often in less affordable units being produced.

It reeks of the mentality that "if I had to pay x amount, why shouldn't everyone else have to" and, as I saw on reddit, "Fuck you, I got mine" and it's rather sickening.

[Saiwania]

Well then how about you stop building luxury housing only the rich can afford. It you only built housing the average person could afford their wouldn't be a shortage.

The city government lets it happen because "rich people" actually are moving in and higher valued property brings in more property tax, and any government that exists basically has an infinite want for money that they can spend on their own salaries and for any little project proposed by whatever interest group. It is not like the "luxury housing" is just sitting vacant, there are enough high income people from all over the world coming in to live there, that higher priced property is being built for them.

If San Francisco's government wants to keep their middle to lower class residents, they're going to have to loosen zoning requirements or build lower cost housing. This is putting aside the fact that San Francisco has no more space to build on. It is not like San Francisco is going to choose to be poorer. They obviously want a high concentration of "well off" people so they can collect much more via taxes.

[San Lumen]

Well then how about you stop building luxury housing only the rich can afford. It you only built housing the average person could afford their wouldn't be a shortage.

The city government lets it happen because "rich people" actually are moving in and higher valued property brings in more property tax, and any government that exists basically has an infinite want for money that they can spend on their own salaries and for any little project proposed by whatever interest group. It is not like the "luxury housing" is just sitting vacant, there are enough high income people from all over the world coming in to live there, that higher priced property is being built for them.

If San Francisco's government wants to keep their middle to lower class residents, they're going to have to loosen zoning requirements or build lower cost housing. This is putting aside the fact that San Francisco has no more space to build on. It is not like San Francisco is going to choose to be poorer. They obviously want a high concentration of "well off" people so they can collect much more via taxes.

Then tell the rich people you will live in housing just like the average person and if you don't like it move out. Build the lower the class housing and the heck with the uber rich corporate executives.

[Proctopeo]

The city government lets it happen because "rich people" actually are moving in and higher valued property brings in more property tax, and any government that exists basically has an infinite want for money that they can spend on their own salaries and for any little project proposed by whatever interest group. It is not like the "luxury housing" is just sitting vacant, there are enough high income people from all over the world coming in to live there, that higher priced property is being built for them.

If San Francisco's government wants to keep their middle to lower class residents, they're going to have to loosen zoning requirements or build lower cost housing. This is putting aside the fact that San Francisco has no more space to build on. It is not like San Francisco is going to choose to be poorer. They obviously want a high concentration of "well off" people so they can collect much more via taxes.

Then tell the rich people you will live in housing just like the average person and if you don't like it move out. Build the lower the class housing and the heck with the uber rich corporate executives.

Money overpowers dickery for the sake of dickery, you know.

[San Lumen]

Then tell the rich people you will live in housing just like the average person and if you don't like it move out. Build the lower the class housing and the heck with the uber rich corporate executives.

Money overpowers dickery for the sake of dickery, you know.

well its long past due we stop allowing it do so.

[Proctopeo]

Money overpowers dickery for the sake of dickery, you know.

well its long past due we stop allowing it do so.

Why?
Why should people with the ability to afford more expensive housing be forced to live in housing like "average people"? That sounds uncomfortably authoritarian.
What even defines "average" here?

[San Lumen]

well its long past due we stop allowing it do so.

Why?
Why should people with the ability to afford more expensive housing be forced to live in housing like "average people"? That sounds uncomfortably authoritarian.
What even defines "average" here?

maybe they shouldnt get special penthouses at the expense of everyone else.

[Sovaal]

Why?
Why should people with the ability to afford more expensive housing be forced to live in housing like "average people"? That sounds uncomfortably authoritarian.
What even defines "average" here?

maybe they shouldnt get special penthouses at the expense of everyone else.

Maybe they shouldn’t build the houses in the first place if it bothers you so much.

[Saiwania]

Then tell the rich people you will live in housing just like the average person and if you don't like it move out. Build the lower the class housing and the heck with the uber rich corporate executives.

I along with other people keep trying to tell you, rent control doesn't work as intended. It is one of the few issues that economists from both the left and right agree on. One of the most studied and well understood things in all of economics.

There is every incentive for people to do the opposite of what you want in San Francisco's case. There are probably some solutions, but it is not so simple as to just ban rich people from moving in. Any major city that is an attractive place to live and has a fiercely competitive real estate market, obviously wants more tax money to make their locale even more deluxe or desirable than before.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Skyrocketing housing prices are too blame. This is a serious issue in all major cities. Poor urban planning.

[Proctopeo]

Why?
Why should people with the ability to afford more expensive housing be forced to live in housing like "average people"? That sounds uncomfortably authoritarian.
What even defines "average" here?

maybe they shouldnt get special penthouses at the expense of everyone else.

Maybe they should, if they can afford them?

[San Lumen]

Then tell the rich people you will live in housing just like the average person and if you don't like it move out. Build the lower the class housing and the heck with the uber rich corporate executives.

I along with other people keep trying to tell you, rent control doesn't work as intended. It is one of the few issues that economists from both the left and right agree on. One of the most studied and well understood things in all of economics.

There is every incentive for people to do the opposite of what you want in San Francisco's case. There are probably some solutions, but it is not so simple as to just ban rich people from moving in. Any major city that is an attractive place to live and has a fiercely competitive real estate market, obviously wants more tax money to make their locale even more deluxe or desirable than before.

did i say ban rich people? No I said stop building luxury penthouses for them and their wouldn't be housing shortage.

[Parhe]

I along with other people keep trying to tell you, rent control doesn't work as intended. It is one of the few issues that economists from both the left and right agree on. One of the most studied and well understood things in all of economics.

There is every incentive for people to do the opposite of what you want in San Francisco's case. There are probably some solutions, but it is not so simple as to just ban rich people from moving in. Any major city that is an attractive place to live and has a fiercely competitive real estate market, obviously wants more tax money to make their locale even more deluxe or desirable than before.

did i say ban rich people? No I said stop building luxury penthouses for them and their wouldn't be housing shortage.

Knowing San Francisco and the Bay Area in general, there would still be a housing shortage. The current residents and especially home owners, middle and upper class, of the region don't want low income housing.

[San Lumen]

did i say ban rich people? No I said stop building luxury penthouses for them and their wouldn't be housing shortage.

Knowing San Francisco and the Bay Area in general, there would still be a housing shortage. The current residents and especially home owners, middle and upper class, of the region don't want low income housing.

well then they are shooting themsleves in the foot. The solution is there but they don't want to implement it. How selfish.

[Saiwania]

Knowing San Francisco and the Bay Area in general, there would still be a housing shortage. The current residents and especially home owners, middle and upper class, of the region don't want low income housing.

Exactly, and if land and housing is finite- how is it rationed out? By price of course. Under a capitalist system, it goes to whoever is able to bid the highest at the time of purchase.

Now this is a long term prediction, but I'd say it is simply not true that real estate prices can continue inflating forever and ever until the end of time. If businesses in San Francisco eventually find it too expensive to operate there, they will close up shop and move away which means that the real estate values in that city would plummet in that scenario. A location with fewer jobs or economic activity is automatically less desirable. A major market correction would obviously then take place.

What goes up, tends to eventually come back down. It is like the law of gravity.

[San Lumen]

Knowing San Francisco and the Bay Area in general, there would still be a housing shortage. The current residents and especially home owners, middle and upper class, of the region don't want low income housing.

Exactly, and if land and housing is finite- how is it rationed out? By price of course. Under a capitalist system, it goes to whoever is able to bid the highest at the time of purchase.

Now this is a long term prediction, but I'd say it is simply not true that real estate prices can continue inflating forever and ever until the end of time. If businesses in San Francisco eventually find it too expensive to operate there, they will close up shop and move away which means that the real estate values in that city would plummet in that scenario. A location with fewer jobs or economic activity is automatically less desirable. A major market correction would obviously then take place.

What goes up, tends to eventually come back down. It is like the law of gravity.

and then housing prices and rent in suburbs skyrocket. its a vicious cycle

[Great Minarchistan]

Rent control hurts the low income earners, because, with forced low prices, people renting the apartments out have no reason to want to maintain the quality of the house, as it would just be money wasted.

Well then how about you stop building luxury housing only the rich can afford. It you only built housing the average person could afford their wouldn't be a shortage.

You seem to have a chronic problem with giving statistics. For the third time, how many luxury housing are built in San Francisco compared to normal housing overall?

[Great Minarchistan]

Knowing San Francisco and the Bay Area in general, there would still be a housing shortage. The current residents and especially home owners, middle and upper class, of the region don't want low income housing.

well then they are shooting themsleves in the foot. The solution is there but they don't want to implement it. How selfish.

Or Californian government could, you know, stop to impose such a heavy tax burden and allow industries to come in and spread across the coast, plus the inflation relief due to tax reductions. The solution is there but they don't want to implement it. How selfish.

[Insaeldor]

People moving out of a expensive area to place where property demands are lower and as a result cheaper? Nothing wrong or schocking here, population movements are a natural occurance based on situations in the area.

[Trotskylvania]

Well then how about you stop building luxury housing only the rich can afford. It you only built housing the average person could afford their wouldn't be a shortage.

The city government lets it happen because "rich people" actually are moving in and higher valued property brings in more property tax, and any government that exists basically has an infinite want for money that they can spend on their own salaries and for any little project proposed by whatever interest group. It is not like the "luxury housing" is just sitting vacant, there are enough high income people from all over the world coming in to live there, that higher priced property is being built for them.

If San Francisco's government wants to keep their middle to lower class residents, they're going to have to loosen zoning requirements or build lower cost housing. This is putting aside the fact that San Francisco has no more space to build on. It is not like San Francisco is going to choose to be poorer. They obviously want a high concentration of "well off" people so they can collect much more via taxes.

Well the City would have to do this directly, because money will follow the path highest profits on its own. Luxury housing crowds out affordable housing in the market. But in the current political climate, any sort of public housing initiative is seen as the direct path to World Communism.

[MERIZoC]

Rent control hurts the low income earners, because, with forced low prices, people renting the apartments out have no reason to want to maintain the quality of the house, as it would just be money wasted.

Which is why you require them to meet certain regulatory standards, like we already do.