Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But minimum wage isn't the only problem. Housing is by far the largest issue in regards to affordability in the Bay Area. And it's not just the City of SF, but the entire inner Bay Area. Way more could be done but instead, once someone gets in their house they could give a damn about other people having that same opportunity. But raise that minimum wage! That will solve it!
People complain about their "view" going away, or a shadow. If you don't want you view to go away, why don't you buy in a new tower then? You'll probably get a better view. You can also still keep strong street integrity and build new construction that blends in with it's environment (aesthetically; like that mixed-use with the Lucky's grocery store on Fulton) but even those get strong opposition.
What exactly should individual buyers do after they’ve worked their way into their home, to insure any number of other people with less money can enjoy the opportunity to have similar properties in the same areas?
What exactly should individual buyers do after they’ve worked their way into their home, to insure any number of other people with less money can enjoy the opportunity to have similar properties in the same areas?
So what makes you think the people moving into newer construction would be making less money? Using the City as an example, it's highly unlikely that a new tower would be full of people making less money than those screaming "no" at the proposal of one (though all new towers should come with 20% affordable housing units at least...similar to New York City).
If you build new condos/rental units, prices won't skyrocket nearly as much on the older buildings when someone leaves a unit. Multiple this throughout the Bay Area and you get more stabilizing prices and more options for people there. That's the whole point of me saying those people should buy in the new tower if they want a view (or better one). People want the Bay to remain the same at the time of their home purchase.
So what makes you think the people moving into newer construction would be making less money? It's highly unlikely that a new tower would be full of people making less money than those screaming "no" at the proposal of one (though all new towers should come with 20% affordable housing units at least...similar to NYC).
If you build new condos/rental units, prices won't skyrocket nearly as much on the older buildings when someone leaves a unit. Multiple this throughout the Bay Area and you get more stabilizing prices and more options for people there. That's the whole point of me saying those people should buy in the new tower if they want a view (or better one). People want the Bay to remain the same at the time of their home purchase.
You just posted a statement criticizing people for not caring if others have the same opportunity to buy. If “others” have the same money, or more, why couldn’t they have the same opportunity? The only reason for not having the same opportunity would be if the “others” couldn’t afford it.
Why should people not desire the Bay to “remain the same” or increase in value?
Why should people support more density to make life more difficult in the City?
You just posted a statement criticizing people for not caring if others have the same opportunity to buy. If “others” have the same money, or more, why couldn’t they have the same opportunity? The only reason for not having the same opportunity would be if the “others” couldn’t afford it.
Because there are limited options that push them out of their price range. If more options were built then they could buy. What's wrong with building more options for people?
Quote:
Why should people not desire the Bay to “remain the same” or increase in value?
Why should people support more density to make life more difficult in the City?
Because what do they think was there before they bought? How did their move-in affect the neighborhood? Why should the Bay stop developing from the time they bought?
And because it's the City. They can move to a rural area if the don't want to deal with traffic and density.
Because there are limited options that push them out of their price range. If more options were built then they could buy. What's wrong with building more options for people?
Because what do they think was there before they bought? How did their move-in affect the neighborhood? Why should the Bay stop developing from the time they bought?
And because it's the City. They can move to a rural area if the don't want to deal with traffic and density.
Wait. How is buying available inventory “stopping the Bay from developing”?
Who said buyers “don’t want to deal with traffic and density” just because they don’t want to increase it (especially with no limit in sight that comes with unrestricted development.)
Buyers buy in San Francisco because they love the City as it is and are willing to accept the density and traffic included. It is a finite paradigm, though. A peninsula bounded by water 3 sides and fully developed suburbs south for hours. What’s wrong with recognizing there are limits and respecting that?
Our culture is addicted to growth. Pervasive in nearly every attitude - example: as you are expressing. Never does the realization occur that it is not possible to expand infinitely in a finite paradigm apparently.
“Growth for its own sake is the ideology of the cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey
There are many many many .... many many many more ... places in this world with limited admission. All who live in those places are not a**hats for loving where they live as it is just because you can’t find a way to do the same.
So what makes you think the people moving into newer construction would be making less money? Using the City as an example, it's highly unlikely that a new tower would be full of people making less money than those screaming "no" at the proposal of one (though all new towers should come with 20% affordable housing units at least...similar to New York City).
If you build new condos/rental units, prices won't skyrocket nearly as much on the older buildings when someone leaves a unit. Multiple this throughout the Bay Area and you get more stabilizing prices and more options for people there. That's the whole point of me saying those people should buy in the new tower if they want a view (or better one). People want the Bay to remain the same at the time of their home purchase.
I enjoy reading posts by people from Houston criticizing San Francisco for lack of affordable housing.
Quote:
The housing crisis in Texas major metro areas is far worse than the state as a whole. Houston is third worst in housing availability for extremely low income households among all major metro areas in the US with only 18 units per 100 households. Dallas-Fort Worth is tied for fifth worst nationally (19 units per 100 households) and Austin ranks ninth worst among US cities with 20 units affordable per 100 households. https://texashousers.net/2017/03/04/...lity-for-poor/
I enjoy reading posts by people from Houston criticizing San Francisco for lack of affordable housing.
Do you notice a correlation between the two lists posted? And being on the same side doesn't mean the situations are entirely equal...
Someone making 20k per year in Houston can still find an apartment for $600-$700 per month which is at just a third of income. Where can someone in SF, or really the entire Bay Area, live off of 20k per year without having multiple roommates? If you go with roommates in Houston, you can find an even nicer/newer apartment and spend less than 1/3 of income on rent. And before you say minimum wage was raised to $15, keep in mind not everyone can get 40 hours of work at one minimum wage job.
Also why does criticizing (or really pointing out major flaws) in SF's housing have people from CA calling out other cities? Why not go start a thread on this in the Texas forum? Calling out other cities doesn't make the problem in SF go away (for the record, I live in LA and have for a few years now).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt
Wait. How is buying available inventory “stopping the Bay from developing”?
Who said buyers “don’t want to deal with traffic and density” just because they don’t want to increase it (especially with no limit in sight that comes with unrestricted development.)
Buyers buy in San Francisco because they love the City as it is and are willing to accept the density and traffic included. It is a finite paradigm, though. A peninsula bounded by water 3 sides and fully developed suburbs south for hours. What’s wrong with recognizing there are limits and respecting that?
Our culture is addicted to growth. Pervasive in nearly every attitude - example: as you are expressing. Never does the realization occur that it is not possible to expand infinitely in a finite paradigm apparently.
“Growth for its own sake is the ideology of the cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey
There are many many many .... many many many more ... places in this world with limited admission. All who live in those places are not a**hats for loving where they live as it is just because you can’t find a way to do the same.
Which places are those? NYC, Hong Kong, Tokyo, London, etc., have all built way more housing than SF has. SF is only built out because the NIMBYs want it to be now. There's plenty of areas where the city can build up.
Manhattan didn't always look like Manhattan either. The build of SF is the problem. No one is saying tear down the entire Richmond District (which is honestly just average for the most part), but you can at least start in places like DTSF and build more high-rise apartment/condo towers. You can redevelop some of the strip centers with larger parking lots into mixed-use developments. Why is that a problem?
Do you notice a correlation between the two lists posted? And being on the same side doesn't mean the situations are entirely equal...
Someone making 20k per year in Houston can still find an apartment for $600-$700 per month which is at just a third of income (and where you ideally want to be). Where can someone in SF live off of 20k per year? And before you say minimum wage was raised to $15, keep in mind not everyone can get 40 hours of work at one minimum wage job.
Also why does criticizing (or really pointing out major flaws) in SF's housing have people from CA calling out other cities? Why not go start a thread on this in the Texas forum?
Funny how you calculate things. You remind us that a person making $15 an hour is unlikely to work 40 hours a week, which I agree with - but then you turn around and base apartment affordability in Houston working assuming 40 hours a week on an hourly wage of $10. My guess is that a good number of people in Houston earning $10 an hour do not get 40 hours a week either. And I just checked hotpads.com for Houston rentals, there are 3902 rentals, of which 37 are offered for $600 or less. 2 of those are senior citizen only and 19 are rooms for rent in people's houses.
I don't see it as a Houston vs San Francisco problem, you are the one who turned it into that, I see it as an impending affordable housing crisis nationwide.
Funny how you calculate things. You remind us that a person making $15 an hour is unlikely to work 40 hours a week, which I agree with - but then you turn around and base apartment affordability in Houston working assuming 40 hours a week on an hourly wage of $10. My guess is that a good number of people in Houston earning $10 an hour do not get 40 hours a week either. And I just checked hotpads.com for Houston rentals, there are 3902 rentals, of which 37 are offered for $600 or less. 2 of those are senior citizen only and 19 are rooms for rent in people's houses.
If you're making $10 an hour in Houston (or Texas generally), there's a good chance that it's a full time job (clerk, admin work, etc.). That same job in SF or LA is $15-$20.
I don't see it as a Houston vs San Francisco problem, you are the one who turned it into that, I see it as an impending affordable housing crisis nationwide.
How when you brought up Houston in a thread about SF?
If you're making $10 an hour in Houston (or Texas generally), there's a good chance that it's a full time job (clerk, admin work, etc.). That same job in SF or LA is $15-$20.
You just said that a $15 an hour job in San Francisco is not full time. I'm done, bye bye.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.