Just got back from the Mission (San Francisco: low income, apartment, homes)

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by jade408

If "fair market" reigned in SF, SF would be priced like Hong Kong, and be only available to tourists and millionaires.

If the fair market reigned/SF Planning eased its development and height restrictions in specific areas, there'd be FAR more housing.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by jade408

If "fair market" reigned in SF, SF would be priced like Hong Kong, and be only available to tourists and millionaires.

Just like Manhattan is today and many of the top european cities.

We all know who's responsible for this too.

SF may not be on par with these cities, but it's still very expensive. More expensive than LA is.

[gone down south]

Originally Posted by geoking66

I don't particularly know how being appalled by the neglect of a neighborhood in the center of a thriving metropolis is really being a wuss, but rather a statement of confusion over a seeming lack of investment. At least New Yorkers are willing to see the potential in their neighborhoods and do something with it rather than keeping the status quo so as to avoid gentrification or possible displacement that's probably far more exaggerated than what would actually happen. The same is true of other cities; I don't know why San Francisco is more afraid of it. Maybe they're the wusses of change.

You must not be familiar with NYtoSF or his body of work.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by geoking66

No, but I dislike active attempts to distort a market and hinder the progress a city could make. I don't think people for these regulations realise the harm they cause ALL citizens. Affordable housing requirements, rent stabilisation/control, and preventing conversions reduce the overall supply of housing and push rents through the roof for everyone else. That reduces disposable income that drives the economy, and in turn funds the services that help those in need. I have nothing against hard working people, but I have an issue with people thinking they're entitled to live in a neighborhood since they were there before an influx of higher-income people. No one owns or deserves a neighborhood.

Thanks for your post.

You've helped make up my mind for me.

I'm moving to the Mission District as soon as I came to SF.

As a former NYer, druggies, bums and thugs doesn't scare me like it does the OP. From what I hear about SF, they basically stay outta your way once they know where you 'stand" on "things".

Thanks Geoking! Gentrificist!

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by gone down south

You must not be familiar with NYtoSF or his body of work.

Can't say I am.

[marilyn220]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

How haven't these people been priced out of the market? Shouldn't that area be prime real estate?

I bet you think that street has "character"

I know this but you will never find a neighborhood like that in the middle of Manhattan.

Are you a born and bred NYer OP or are you a transplant who lived there for some years and claimed the city as your own cause you're from a small nobody town?

If you are from NY (born and bred), WHERE did you grow up? In one of the five boroughs or the burbs?

Just curious, because your posts sound very "sheltered".

[NapaCab]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

I know this but you will never find a neighborhood like that in the middle of Manhattan.

You can't know Manhattan very well if you say that. There are areas like that right in the middle of Manhattan. My grandfather talked about the Bowery in NYC in the 1930s and that it was full of 'bums' as he used to say, homeless alcoholics who'd fallen as far as they could go, couldn't cope with life in the city etc. That was in the 1930s.

I visited NYC a couple of years ago and as we were in SoHo, we decided to head a bit further east to check out this infamous 'Bowery' that was legend in my family. Yep, still a dump, still full of homeless people and weirdos. I think there are probably some hipsters there too these days (they're everywhere, after all...) but generally the area seemed pretty sketchy. It's odd that you claim to be from NYC but you don't know about areas like that right on your doorstep in Manhattan.

[geoking66]

Originally Posted by marilyn220

Thanks for your post.

You've helped make up my mind for me.

I'm moving to the Mission District as soon as I came to SF.

As a former NYer, druggies, bums and thugs doesn't scare me like it does the OP. From what I hear about SF, they basically stay outta your way once they know where you 'stand" on "things".

Thanks Geoking! Gentrificist!

What can I say? I know a smart investment when I see one. Too bad the Mission isn't one of them. Wish it were…

Originally Posted by NapaCab

You can't know Manhattan very well if you say that. There are areas like that right in the middle of Manhattan. My grandfather talked about the Bowery in NYC in the 1930s and that it was full of 'bums' as he used to say, homeless alcoholics who'd fallen as far as they could go, couldn't cope with life in the city etc. That was in the 1930s.

I visited NYC a couple of years ago and as we were in SoHo, we decided to head a bit further east to check out this infamous 'Bowery' that was legend in my family. Yep, still a dump, still full of homeless people and weirdos. I think there are probably some hipsters there too these days (they're everywhere, after all...) but generally the area seemed pretty sketchy. It's odd that you claim to be from NYC but you don't know about areas like that right on your doorstep in Manhattan.

As I've said before, Bowery is fine nowadays apart from the section near Chatham Square, but that's in deep Chinatown, which is more dirty than anything else, and certainly not near SoHo. To be honest, there are few parts of Manhattan that are even bad anymore, save for East Harlem and sections of Washington Heights.

[FSOWife]

Originally Posted by geoking66

No, but I dislike active attempts to distort a market and hinder the progress a city could make. I don't think people for these regulations realize the harm they cause ALL citizens. Affordable housing requirements, rent stabilization/control, and preventing conversions reduce the overall supply of housing and push rents through the roof for everyone else. That reduces disposable income that drives the economy, and in turn funds the services that help those in need. I have nothing against hard working people, but I have an issue with people thinking they're entitled to live in a neighborhood since they were there before an influx of higher-income people. No one owns or deserves a neighborhood.

While I agree with you Geo that higher rent makes for lower general disposable income, you don't truly understand why there is affordable housing.

First off just about every city in America has some sort of affordable housing program, especially in major cities, such as San Fan, DC, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Savannah, St. Louis,......etc And NYC.

As someone who works in the real estate management business and has worked for companies that own communities not only in San Fran but also other major cities, and has personally worked with the affordable housing programs in said communities, they are not just there because of the city says we need to take care of it's own. No in fact in my experience most (not all) living these units are immigrants trying to start a new life.

Affordable housing generally is actually very complicated system because the company basically is loaned money to build a new community with the requirement of an affordable housing program for generally around 20 years, there are certain tax incentives for this. These units "usually" are not as renovated nor have a "desired" location in the building(s) due to the lower cost. Who wants to pay $1700 in rent for a one bedroom apartment when it faces a dumpster?

Also it isn't like just anyone can live there. They have very strict requirements on how an individual can qualify based upon income. Generally ahp residents files due to the necessary paper work have about 3 times bigger than non-ahp residents.

Also the government requires banks to invest and "give" back to their communities, one way that banks, such as Suntrust, do this through affordable housing programs. Another way banks help lower to moderate income families is by setting aside generally 10% of their profits to help less fortunate purchase a home, usually in the way of a down payment. This helps lower month mortgage costs making it more affordable for them to pay and helps the housing market in return.

The general cost of apartments and the market actually have nothing to due with the affordable housing units. Most major companies today are using a system called YeildStar or Yardi that takes factors such as area, amenities in the community, how many apartments are available in said community, how many similar apartments are available in the competitions communities and calculates a price this way. Prices are able then to be more competitive because they are able to adjust as the market changes.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by NYCtoSF

I got off at 16th and Mission from the BART and walked a few blocks....and I'm still in shock. I don't think I've seen a neighborhood like that in America in my life.

The place is seriously third world. It looks like it belongs in Somalia, and this was in the middle of the afternoon on a Sunday. I wonder what it looks like at nights when the real freaks come out?

I saw two young thugs walk by hooting and hollering at every woman they passed, with their pants sagging and underwear showing of course.

I saw this black woman walk into a store with one flip flop and the other foot wrapped in rags.

Everyone looked like they were on drugs, homeless, illegal aliens, or all three.

I'm shocked that a place like that exists in the middle of SF. What the hell is going on?

lol... Be honest... You've never actually been in New York City, have you?