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.
A big reason why the rent is so high is because of the damn rent control - people moved in, and they never move out. I've lived in buildings where more than half of the residents are there for over twenty years. They're hogging the places and reducing inventory. When the true vacancy rate is 2.5%, of course you are going to get very high rent - because the supply is so scarce. In any other citiy/town, a renter who lives in one place for over 25 yrs is like Bigfoot, you only heard about the rumor of their existence; here in SF they are a dime a dozen.
Stricter rent control is only going to reduce even more inventory and creates higher rent. You can't fight market forces. Sorry. The problem is that people only look at a very very small area and say, "Oh the rent is so high!" Look, a large part of SF is still relatively affordable (not to mention Oakland, Daly City, South SF, etc), but people look down on them - they deem places like Visitation Valley or Silver Terrace as unworthy. They want to be in the center of SF. When everyone and his/her mother wants to live within a 3 miles radius, of course rent is going to be sky high.
People who talk about stricter rent control, they are just shooting themselves in the foot. Unless they're old tenants already in rent controlled units, cause that's basically the only class of renters rent control protects - those already in rent-controlled units and plan to stay there or have stayed there for a long time. New renters, on the other hands, are screwed big time.
Okay, then how about this? Have the city purchase and manage properties like these mircro apartments with a rent ceiling- say $1400 max. This may be a higher turn over situation than a traditional flat because there simply isn't enough room for several people.
From my experience, people in SF generally want to stay around for awhile, partially because of the fear of competing for a new place or paying through the nose. Its the same way in NYC, I assure you. I would be curious to see stats on how many people are actually in this situation, and what it is doing to the market.
Please tell me which part of SF is afforable for someone who makes 42K. Thats about $600-650 take home a week. Oakland, sure. SF? Not seeing it. I ask because I had a friend right out of grad school offered a great nonprofit job with that salary. He found absolutely nothing he could afford within the city. He ended up moving in with several roommates in Oakland. This is my point. There are a lot of service industry, retail, artists, nonprofit workers, etc., that the city is turning away due to its pricetag. SF has become a haven for the educated upper middle class, and I often suspect people like it that way.
Okay, then how about this? Have the city purchase and manage properties like these mircro apartments with a rent ceiling- say $1400 max. This may be a higher turn over situation than a traditional flat because there simply isn't enough room for several people.
The SF Housing Authority is already owning and managing many properties. All they do is turn those into some of the worst crime ridden slums in the city. So no thanks. Plus I don't think the city has the money and even if it does, you know the advocacy groups and many locals will be bitching why the city is wasting money on these yuppie style studios, the political pressure will be too much. It won't happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedasusual
From my experience, people in SF generally want to stay around for awhile, partially because of the fear of competing for a new place or paying through the nose. Its the same way in NYC, I assure you. I would be curious to see stats on how many people are actually in this situation, and what it is doing to the market.
The nationwide average turnover rate for a rental is 5 years. Five. A renter who lives in the same place for 25 years is staying five times longer than the average - it's not normal behavior. You're right, they don't move because they are literally boxed in by rent control. This is the other side of rent control that we seldom discuss - it makes prisoners out of people. The building that I lived in, the two elderly ladies who live across from each other have severe arthritis, one have to walk with a cane. They both live on the second floor. You can picture the difficulty of two semi-disabled persons navigating two flights of stairs in their daily lives (think grocery/laundry). And furthermore, they actually own properties themselves elsewhere in the state. They have no business living there but they just can't let go of their cheap rent controlled units, they are held prisoners by rent control.
New York is a very pro-landlord city. It's really a very different market than SF. The actual rent controlled units are very, very small there - the majority of NYC is consisted of condos (not under rent control) and co-ops (technically can be rented but often forbidden by the bylaws). It'd be interesting to see the comparison of SF and NYC, especially regarding the large number of co-ops that cannot be rented out and defacto serves to limit the rental supply.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedasusual
Please tell me which part of SF is afforable for someone who makes 42K. Thats about $600-650 take home a week. Oakland, sure. SF? Not seeing it. I ask because I had a friend right out of grad school offered a great nonprofit job with that salary. He found absolutely nothing he could afford within the city. He ended up moving in with several roommates in Oakland. This is my point. There are a lot of service industry, retail, artists, nonprofit workers, etc., that the city is turning away due to its pricetag. SF has become a haven for the educated upper middle class, and I often suspect people like it that way.
I'd say $1,000 is a reasonably affordable amount to pay for a place to call your own (no roommates). Even in Sacramento, one is expected to pay roughly this amount for a nice unit in a nice neighborhood (of course in Sacto the unit would be bigger, but it's relative, everything in Sac is bigger). The following is a few that I'd consider affordable. Now, there aren't too many places $1,000 or below but they're out there, they exist.
Since your friend is ok with roommates, that's even easier. I'd say $800 (roughly 30% of your friend's take home pay) is a reasonable amount to spend on rent. On craigslist, there are over a hundred listings for roommates for $800 or below.
The SF Housing Authority is already owning and managing many properties. All they do is turn those into some of the worst crime ridden slums in the city. So no thanks. Plus I don't think the city has the money and even if it does, you know the advocacy groups and many locals will be bitching why the city is wasting money on these yuppie style studios, the political pressure will be too much. It won't happen.
The nationwide average turnover rate for a rental is 5 years. Five. A renter who lives in the same place for 25 years is staying five times longer than the average - it's not normal behavior. You're right, they don't move because they are literally boxed in by rent control. This is the other side of rent control that we seldom discuss - it makes prisoners out of people. The building that I lived in, the two elderly ladies who live across from each other have severe arthritis, one have to walk with a cane. They both live on the second floor. You can picture the difficulty of two semi-disabled persons navigating two flights of stairs in their daily lives (think grocery/laundry). And furthermore, they actually own properties themselves elsewhere in the state. They have no business living there but they just can't let go of their cheap rent controlled units, they are held prisoners by rent control.
New York is a very pro-landlord city. It's really a very different market than SF. The actual rent controlled units are very, very small there - the majority of NYC is consisted of condos (not under rent control) and co-ops (technically can be rented but often forbidden by the bylaws). It'd be interesting to see the comparison of SF and NYC, especially regarding the large number of co-ops that cannot be rented out and defacto serves to limit the rental supply.
I'd say $1,000 is a reasonably affordable amount to pay for a place to call your own (no roommates). Even in Sacramento, one is expected to pay roughly this amount for a nice unit in a nice neighborhood (of course in Sacto the unit would be bigger, but it's relative, everything in Sac is bigger). The following is a few that I'd consider affordable. Now, there aren't too many places $1,000 or below but they're out there, they exist.
Since your friend is ok with roommates, that's even easier. I'd say $800 (roughly 30% of your friend's take home pay) is a reasonable amount to spend on rent. On craigslist, there are over a hundred listings for roommates for $800 or below.
Yes, but lets be real here. He went to many, many showings where there was a line out the door and people bidding for the place. Many times, landlords post a low rent to start a bidding war.
So what would you suggest in terms of turnovers for apartments? I see your point, I do. Perhaps units where there is a certain length of tenure? I am just brainstorming here.
Yes, but lets be real here. He went to many, many showings where there was a line out the door and people bidding for the place. Many times, landlords post a low rent to start a bidding war.
I'd say depends on the neighborhood. If he went to a open house in Mission Dolores, for sure there'd be a line. In the Outer Richmond? I don't think so. My cousin is renting out his 1br in the Outer Richmond, he never get a line of people. There are a few inquiries per day, there is sufficient interest, but his open house usually draw no more than a few people. Which is just fine by him.
I'm not saying there isn't competition even in the outer reaches of SF, but it is less crazy over there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by confusedasusual
So what would you suggest in terms of turnovers for apartments? I see your point, I do. Perhaps units where there is a certain length of tenure? I am just brainstorming here.
I don't think there is anything we can do to create more turnover now that rent control is a sacred cow. But one of my pet peeve is the lack of density around transportation hub. The reason why people stay away from the edges of SF is partly due to inconvenience - they have to walk too far to get to a station. We can fix that by having more density around BART stations. I mean the area surrounding the Glen Park station, Balboa station, and Daly City station (walkable from SF's Ingleside), and many of the T-Rail stations are mostly zoned for single family homes. That's poor urban planning. Imagine if those two to three blocks surrounding a station are zoned for multiple units each four stories or higher. We'll literally have thousands of new units all within walking distance to BART or rail. And it'd require no money from the city, just a change of the zoning code within the designated area.
When more people are open to living in places like Visitation Valley, Silver Terrace, Sunnyside, Bayview etc; it'd help to alleviate the congestion in the SF hub. Not to mention potentially opening up those areas as places to visit. It's a win-win. But I'm not holding my breath.
Lastly, Daly City, South SF, and Oakland are perfectly fine places to live. South SF is only 9 miles from the financial district, but many people wouldn't even consider it because its address is not San Francisco. In terms of where to live, I think we need to think of SF as a part of the Bay Area and not as a stand alone be-all-end-all city. SF is too small to accommodate everyone. If everyone in Sacramento only wants to live within a three-mile radius, that three-mile radius would be super expensive too. In Sacto, if you live 20 miles away from work, it's considered close. In SF, if you live 10 miles from work, it means you're living in another city and that's unacceptable.
If you ask me its a good idea. San Francisco needs affordable housing, just housing in general. Apparently the city only approved a very small amount of units(375) because there has been some push back around this plan.
Guess some people who live in San Francisco don't want to live in a crowded city?
It sounds good at first, but I can't help but feel that after a few years pass, and this sorta thing becomes acceptable, then you'll start seeing the poor trying to raise their families in those rooms. The thought of the same people living in one of those small rooms for 10-15 years, and raising a family of 4 or 5 there, just makes me sad...
About time they convert prison cells into trendy tiny apartments. I am sure some techie idiot whose only goal in life is to live in SOMA will spend 50% of his paycheck for living in that hellhole.
Only in SF going backward in living standard and increasing slumification like this is considered progress.
About time they convert prison cells into trendy tiny apartments. I am sure some techie idiot whose only goal in life is to live in SOMA will spend 50% of his paycheck for living in that hellhole.
Only in SF going backward in living standard and increasing slumification like this is considered progress.
Alcatraz has lovely views...
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.
