[Commander666]

Originally Posted by lvmensch

I do not think you understand San Francisco. While I agree with you and would not chose to live there I do have some understanding of the place. SF does not wish to be LA or NYC. They do not want unlimited high rise. Some decades ago we tried hard to buy a triplex in Belmont Shores in Long Beach. That was another such area. The big developers wanted to high rise the beach front along Belmont Shores. They did so in downtown Long Beach. But the citizens of Belmont Shores organized and blocked it. So they continue to have a neat beach accessible neighborhood. It has perhaps 25% of the density it would have had with the high rises...but the people who lived there loved it. By the way a number of the bigger houses were subdivided into smaller apartments...so even the less well off lived there.

Everywhere does not have to go the Manhattan route. I was born there and am very fond of the place...but I would never live there. And selecting otherwise is not a grievous fault.

It's clear you don't understand San Francisco. The only way TO build is up. Even the houses that have been there forever are 3-5000 Sq ft on a 3000 Sq ft lot. SFRs are practically aii 3-4 stories.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Commander666

It's clear you don't understand San Francisco. The only way TO build is up. Even the houses that have been there forever are 3-5000 Sq ft on a 3000 Sq ft lot. SFRs are practically aii 3-4 stories.

The only way to build in any well developed city is up. Or not at all. Some places opt for not at all. That is exactly what happened in Belmont Shores and in much of SF.

I probably have 5 or 6 months of my life in greater SF. Little in SF itself but mostly on the peninsula. Almost moved there...but did not work out.

[BBMW]

They are building high rises. What's driving housing prices in SF is that the rich techies in Silicon Valley find it boring to live there, and a big chunk of them have moved to SF, and continue to do so. This is to the point that the big Valley tech companies are running buses from SF to Silicon Valley for their employees.

They're the ones doing the squeezing.

Originally Posted by EA

Why is housing rising? Because stupid laws restricting high rises. Which is what I said. So between the artificially inflated housing pricing and the high taxes people are leaving. I wouldn't live in San Fran for 1,000,000 a year after taxes.

[Commander666]

Originally Posted by BBMW

They are building high rises. What's driving housing prices in SF is that the rich techies in Silicon Valley find it boring to live there, and a big chunk of them have moved to SF, and continue to do so. This is to the point that the big Valley tech companies are running buses from SF to Silicon Valley for their employees.

They're the ones doing the squeezing.

San Francisco is a pretty small city both in area and population. Pretty much every piece of land has already been built on. Bay to Breakers Race is only 7.5 miles, less than Las Vegas Blvd to Summerlin.

[tijlover]

Originally Posted by BBMW

They are building high rises. What's driving housing prices in SF is that the rich techies in Silicon Valley find it boring to live there, and a big chunk of them have moved to SF, and continue to do so. This is to the point that the big Valley tech companies are running buses from SF to Silicon Valley for their employees.

They're the ones doing the squeezing.

You can well believe there's no high rises being built in northern San Francisco, nor will there ever be any. The "Kings and Queens" of the Hills have made sure no building higher than 3 stories is to be built there, so their views of the Bay are unhindered.

Yes, high rises are being built, many marching down Market/Mission Streets, but the "Kings and Queens" of the Hills have no objection to it, because it blocks their views of Oakland and the Shipyards

But north San Francisco is sacred! You'll never see a high rise being built near Fisherman's Wharf, or near Ocean Beach, but the California Coastal Commission rules over that: no high rises along the entire California coastline. The rare ones you see are 1970 or older. Long Beach excluded.

Nimbyism runs rampant around the entire Bay area, including Oakland and Berkley.

[Commander666]

Originally Posted by BBMW

They are building high rises. What's driving housing prices in SF is that the rich techies in Silicon Valley find it boring to live there, and a big chunk of them have moved to SF, and continue to do so. This is to the point that the big Valley tech companies are running buses from SF to Silicon Valley for their employees.

They're the ones doing the squeezing.

There are plenty of tech companies in SF as well. Salesforce, Uber, lyft, and of course all the Financials are there. But yes, some friends son works for Google and lives in concord, 70 miles one way. Four days a week a van shows up at his house, he jumps in, goes to work on his laptop, works four or five hours in Sunnyvale, hops back in the van, etc etc

[Commander666]

https://www-chicagotribune-com.cdn.a...509-story.html. California and Nevada see this they'll follow suit.

[lvmensch]

Originally Posted by Commander666

https://www-chicagotribune-com.cdn.a...509-story.html. California and Nevada see this they'll follow suit.

Very likely inevitable eventually. Not likely in NV which has a reasonably substantial personal property tax in the auto registration.

[EA]

1,000 is pretty steep. Quick google shows .52 cent gas tax in NV. So if I drove 30k miles last year, triple the norm, I'd pay about 780 bucks in total gas tax assuming 20mpg. And only part of that would even go to roads like it should.
So to charge ev owners 1,000 is absurd. I can see charging whatever the gas tax is in their state x 600 (12,000 miles divided by 20mpg)

[Commander666]

I am of the belief ANY new tax is a bad tax. Money is not the problem, lifetime politicians are.