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.
I would dump truck load of horse manure at Pelosi’s house and vineyard. Crazy Rich Politicians! Maybe I make a movie about it.
In SF it would probably be cheaper to finagle a truck load of human manure rather than horse manure.
SF is a rich enclave whose poor are fighting a losing battle. At 800k people it's similar to Manhattan. Some places are just out of reach for most.
The difference is that in the New York metro region there's scads of housing at various prices, whereas in SF there's nowhere to run if you can't afford a million dollar listing. It's a region-wide failure not a municipal failure.
Housing shouldn’t be a profit making business, but some people are too stupid to realize that.
Funny you say that.
Rental property profit margins are razor thin in SF. Anyone with an acquaintance of rental property understands that there are two ways to make money: cash flow and price appreciation. They are inversely related. The faster a property appreciates in price, the lower the cash flow profit. The higher the cash flow on a property, the more stagnant the value and potential sales price.
If you want to aim your fire at landlords making profits off of rent, I suggest you look towards Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other slow growth cities.
Before you chime in on long time landlords, keep in mind SF has had rent control for decades and those long time landlords are also often required to provide below-market rent to long time tenants.
Cap ratios in SF are like 2-3%. All the value is in appreciation. Whereas in slow growth cities you can find cap ratios over 10%.
Rental property profit margins are razor thin in SF. Anyone with an acquaintance of rental property understands that there are two ways to make money: cash flow and price appreciation. They are inversely related. The faster a property appreciates in price, the lower the cash flow profit. The higher the cash flow on a property, the more stagnant the value and potential sales price.
If you want to aim your fire at landlords making profits off of rent, I suggest you look towards Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and other slow growth cities.
Before you chime in on long time landlords, keep in mind SF has had rent control for decades and those long time landlords are also often required to provide below-market rent to long time tenants.
Cap ratios in SF are like 2-3%. All the value is in appreciation. Whereas in slow growth cities you can find cap ratios over 10%.
Rich land lords extend to the real estate companies that make money off of high end construction.
None of it targeted towards the poor. And fundamentally the idea that housing should cost money when the housing is vacant is beyond insane.
Rich land lords extend to the real estate companies that make money off of high end construction.
None of it targeted towards the poor. And fundamentally the idea that housing should cost money when the housing is vacant is beyond insane.
Construction costs are a little bit higher in SF than nationally. The real difference is in land prices. Land prices are what make SF real estate expensive, full stop. Not construction costs and attending regulations, not greedy landlords.
Zoning regulations do make a difference in that they prohibit lots of construction from ever starting. But once a project is approved it's not that much more expensive to build in SF as to explain the insane costs there.
Loosening zoning regulations would move the needle like in Seattle, but honestly SF is becoming a gated city where only rich people can afford to live. There is too much global demand for SF real estate and too many rich people in the US and world for the middle class, let alone working class, to stand a chance there.
Not surprising. When taxes go through the roof, it's those on the bottom of the ladder who suffer most.
-----------
To fully appreciate the extent of the damage they are causing and why perhaps more than anywhere else in the country the homeless problem is so acute is that the median price of a modest single family home now stands at $1.6 million. A family of four with a household income of $100k is considered at the poverty line and actually qualifies for assistance from HUD (let that sink in — taxpayers across the country are subsidizing the housing of people making a $100k/year).
It's even simpler than that... The lesson San Fran should teach us is this:
Make a whole city too expensive for any but the very rich to actually live in and your city will fall apart.
Not everyone has "somewhere else" to go or is just gonna disappear once they get kicked out of their home... they are just gonna move to the street, deal with the stress the situation by seeking handouts and available mind-altering chemical substances and crap all over the sidewalk. Eventually they get desperate enough to eat the rich people themselves and burn the whole place to the ground.
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.
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.
