NYC is next families earning $117,400 now qualify as 'low income' in San Francisco (home, neighborhoods)

[BPt111]

Will $100,000 consider low income in NYC in few years ?

(CNN) -- Are San Francisco families earning $117,400 a year really considered low income?

That's what the latest data from the US Housing and Urban Development Department seems to suggest.

No doubt San Francisco has seen both its incomes and home prices soar in recent years, thanks largely to money flooding in from the tech boom. But the figure from HUD, which is income for a family of four, requires a bit more explanation.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/27/us/sa...ing/index.html

[l1995]

117 is nowhere near being low income around here even for a family.

[NYer23]

Originally Posted by BPt111

Will $100,000 consider low income in NYC in few years ?

No, San Francisco housing policy is more extreme than NYC and NYC geographically encompasses much more land and diversity. The Bronx is to Manhattan what Oakland is to San Francisco.

[OyCrumbler]

No for several reasons. San Francisco is only 47 square miles of land to NYC's 302 square miles of land and San Francisco is notoriously difficult in terms of building permits in a way that NYC is not. The same goes in a comparison of the Bay Area versus the Tri-State Area.

San Francisco and the Bay Area also has far more limited transit infrastructure than NYC and the Tri-State Area does, so the ability to release the pressure valve on housing costs is more limited. There's pretty much just one area in San Francisco that has seen additional housing constructed and that's the South of Market area and on south while NYC has been on a tear when it comes to building additional housing in multiple parts of the city including in various parts of Manhattan.

It makes some sense that San Francisco wants to keep much of its historic architecture since it’s a pretty small city and some of its neighborhoods are virtually the only expanses of historic architecture in the region, but then it doesn’t make sense that nearby municipalities with far less historic architecture of note have produced such a limited supply of housing.

[RadeonHD4250]

For a family of four (two working adults, and two children) that's $58,700 per adult if split down the middle. That is not a low income household for NYC, even in the foreseeable future.

[Javawood]

While I hate spending money, I don't feel anywhere near low income. I'm going to say no.

[vision33r]

The bay area requires driving get in. Nowhere in SF is cheap that has mass transit. It's like living in Jersey City except everything costs 10x

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by vision33r

The bay area requires driving get in. Nowhere in SF is cheap that has mass transit. It's like living in Jersey City except everything costs 10x

Yea, the Bay Area screwed up on its transit very early on when it decided to have its BART system be a broad gauge system in an area that had built up a massive amount of existing standard gauge rail lines. It meant that BART can't expand its system easily by using existing rail in the area nor is it compatible with the other major rail system for the area (Caltrain). If they hadn't screwed that up with that early design decision then BART and Caltrain could have been combined to do a rapid transit loop around the Bay, a traversal of the middle of the bay through an existing rail bridge, and could have easily created several additional lines. That's a pretty severe screw up, and since BART is already so heavily used and large now, it's almost impossible for them to switch at this point. There's definitely some similar issues with some early choices that NYC and the Tri-State area rolled out, but nothing near as monumentally difficult to get around as that.

[Mr.Retired]

If this is considered poverty then all retirees on fixed incomes are screwed...........

[Kefir King]

Originally Posted by Mr.Retired

If this is considered poverty then all retirees on fixed incomes are screwed...........

You said a mouthful. By that standard, I am DESTITUTE.