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've been in SF for 25 years. Moved here as a working musician. I am now an IT Consultant/Web Developer with 15 years experience who makes well under 100k at a non-profit. I turned 40 and though at the peak of my ability, far smarter than I was in my 20s and even 30s, I am experiencing ageism when looking for a higher paying job. Now I just got an OMI no-fault eviction after 15 years at my residence. A bit angry to say the least.
Through the decades in SF I've been through two gentrifications. First one failed in early 2000. This latest one is intense unlike anything I have seen. It was a take over of the city. The existing housing crisis has turned into a housing emergency, parks are getting trashed by new influx of entitled spoiled corporate employees, social-conscience is no longer a thing... How did we get here? Who planned this?
Some SF political history from my pov: I understand why Willie Brown did what he did in the nineties when he welcomed the first invasion. It resulted in better housing for low income, etc. It seems though what he did opened the gates for what we are seeing today. The only hope we had to keep the quality of life high back then was Gonzalez as mayor, and those who were here then know how that went. It was close --some found ballots in the bay... Then we get to Ed Lee who gives tax breaks of 40m for a take over. Ed Lee has been fighting for housing rights since the 60s. Why did he do what he did? His attempt to get residential units out of the take over was a complete failure. It resulted in Penthouses costing 12m. On top of that there was no preparation for transportation other than replacing a bridge. I find this highly confusing. Did anyone see this coming? It seems it ended at "I want to be in the city(salesforce)". "Ok, we will give you massive tax breaks to do so(Mayor Lee)". "Great(salesforce)". End of story for many. Smart-City?
Did anyone at any point look at the numbers? Count the amount of available housing units in SF in comparison to the plans to develop corporate high rises in SOMA? I know progressive were fighting. At one point the project on Washington Street was a big deal... what we have seen in the last few years in SOMA is an absolute nightmare to locals who do not own housing.
If we are so smart in the Bay Area why did we let this happen? I always envisioned Silicon Valley creating a new city that was well-planned and sustainable. Something like Bill Gates is now envisioning in Arizona. Bottom-line is it was outright dumb to try to fit Silicon Valley in to SF. The new mentality in SF is toxic, it did not value the existing culture, and now life is a non-stop treadmill of competing and trying to get ahead.
Losing SF to the take over in the last three years, for any who remember what it was, is depressing to put it lightly. No longer is there an art or music scene. No longer does SF nurture talent. The social-conscience is gone. Now, all you here about are people with mostly uncreative ideas trying to make massive amounts of money. There are certainly a lot of business smart individuals though they all seem to share an extreme lack of humanity.
All in all, the way things have unfolded recently shows as humans we are going backwards. Babylon had better planning... Our existing gauge of intelligence is wrong. Just look at the small island of a city we are on and stare at the high rises that look too big. As children we used to play with blocks and try to fit them into spaces. Blocks wouldn't fit into small spaces but we would often keep trying. I guess we never learn. Simplicity is a beatch.
So a lot of people who grew up with San Francisco, one's who suffered through its bad times, get booted out either by too high offers on their housing they cant refuse, not being financially relevant enough to stay, and just because others want to be here. Americaaaa-FCk-YEH. Survival of the fittest. I fall into the category of lacking finance relevancy. Meaning I am ok with not being wealthy. However, I am not giving up so easily and will stay in the city I grew up in as long as I can.
I will be moving into a Dodge van from a 4 bedroom house in the Mission next month. I just do not have the money to lose into rent and given this is my second no-fault eviction in 25 years, going forward I need to own whatever it is I have. I need the ability to make my own decisions and stop being kicked for not doing anything wrong. The river of inhumanity is not a place I want to be. I know the city will not be kind to me as a van dweller but I am left with no choice. Its strictly to survive in the new SF. The Smart-City?
San Jose never became Sexy and Cool. Not to say that San Francisco was, but San Jose really dropped the ball on being 'livable' in the early 00s, and so companies and younger employees made it a point to be in 'The City'.
While San Jose should have been building lofts with rooftop pools, amazing amenities, attracting nightlife, speeding along the BART expansion, and solidifying itself as a 'destination'. It failed to do so, and SF became increasingly the defacto place to live.
One must also blame the cities of San Mateo and Santa Clara that refused to build. Many people seeking smaller homes (1BR, Studios) turned to the city because the availability in the suburbs was nil.
There is just a ton of high paying jobs and a lack of housing.
The industry should spread out, but seems reluctant to do so.
Institute a corporate tax and earmark that tax solely for expanding housing options across the board.
I've been in SF for 25 years. Moved here as a working musician. I am now an IT Consultant/Web Developer with 15 years experience who makes well under 100k at a non-profit. I turned 40 and though at the peak of my ability, far smarter than I was in my 20s and even 30s, I am experiencing ageism when looking for a higher paying job. Now I just got an OMI no-fault eviction after 15 years at my residence. A bit angry to say the least.
Through the decades in SF I've been through two gentrifications. First one failed in early 2000. This latest one is intense unlike anything I have seen. It was a take over of the city. The existing housing crisis has turned into a housing emergency, parks are getting trashed by new influx of entitled spoiled corporate employees, social-conscience is no longer a thing... How did we get here? Who planned this?
Some SF political history from my pov: I understand why Willie Brown did what he did in the nineties when he welcomed the first invasion. It resulted in better housing for low income, etc. It seems though what he did opened the gates for what we are seeing today. The only hope we had to keep the quality of life high back then was Gonzalez as mayor, and those who were here then know how that went. It was close --some found ballots in the bay... Then we get to Ed Lee who gives tax breaks of 40m for a take over. Ed Lee has been fighting for housing rights since the 60s. Why did he do what he did? His attempt to get residential units out of the take over was a complete failure. It resulted in Penthouses costing 12m. On top of that there was no preparation for transportation other than replacing a bridge. I find this highly confusing. Did anyone see this coming? It seems it ended at "I want to be in the city(salesforce)". "Ok, we will give you massive tax breaks to do so(Mayor Lee)". "Great(salesforce)". End of story for many. Smart-City?
Did anyone at any point look at the numbers? Count the amount of available housing units in SF in comparison to the plans to develop corporate high rises in SOMA? I know progressive were fighting. At one point the project on Washington Street was a big deal... what we have seen in the last few years in SOMA is an absolute nightmare to locals who do not own housing.
If we are so smart in the Bay Area why did we let this happen? I always envisioned Silicon Valley creating a new city that was well-planned and sustainable. Something like Bill Gates is now envisioning in Arizona. Bottom-line is it was outright dumb to try to fit Silicon Valley in to SF. The new mentality in SF is toxic, it did not value the existing culture, and now life is a non-stop treadmill of competing and trying to get ahead.
Losing SF to the take over in the last three years, for any who remember what it was, is depressing to put it lightly. No longer is there an art or music scene. No longer does SF nurture talent. The social-conscience is gone. Now, all you here about are people with mostly uncreative ideas trying to make massive amounts of money. There are certainly a lot of business smart individuals though they all seem to share an extreme lack of humanity.
All in all, the way things have unfolded recently shows as humans we are going backwards. Babylon had better planning... Our existing gauge of intelligence is wrong. Just look at the small island of a city we are on and stare at the high rises that look too big. As children we used to play with blocks and try to fit them into spaces. Blocks wouldn't fit into small spaces but we would often keep trying. I guess we never learn. Simplicity is a beatch.
So a lot of people who grew up with San Francisco, one's who suffered through its bad times, get booted out either by too high offers on their housing they cant refuse, not being financially relevant enough to stay, and just because others want to be here. Americaaaa-FCk-YEH. Survival of the fittest. I fall into the category of lacking finance relevancy. Meaning I am ok with not being wealthy. However, I am not giving up so easily and will stay in the city I grew up in as long as I can.
I will be moving into a Dodge van from a 4 bedroom house in the Mission next month. I just do not have the money to lose into rent and given this is my second no-fault eviction in 25 years, going forward I need to own whatever it is I have. I need the ability to make my own decisions and stop being kicked for not doing anything wrong. The river of inhumanity is not a place I want to be. I know the city will not be kind to me as a van dweller but I am left with no choice. Its strictly to survive in the new SF. The Smart-City?
Hoodun the SF you loved is gone and the new SF is basically kicking you out. I think you need to get out of that bubble and move to a area with a low COL and people that will appreciate your talents and skills. Once your on the streets it's very hard to find a good job and get your life back on track. Good Luck
Sorry to read that you are losing your home of so many years. If your only choice is to be homeless then you may want to look into moving to a more suitable location. It sounds like you are priced out of Oakland too? Have you looked into Sacramento or maybe LA?
I saw the writing on the wall 11 years ago and ditched my rent controlled apt in SF and bot a condo in Oakland - before it changed and became expensive too. BTW, I was only making like 45k back then but banks were more forgiving. Of course that lead to the crash.
Seriously, try not to live in your vehicle. Just from reading what you wrote, I think you will go downhill fast. It'll be hard to get back on your feet. I don't write this to be cruel but it just sounds like you need direction and a kick. Good luck! I wish you well...
San Jose never became Sexy and Cool. Not to say that San Francisco was, but San Jose really dropped the ball on being 'livable' in the early 00s, and so companies and younger employees made it a point to be in 'The City'.
While San Jose should have been building lofts with rooftop pools, amazing amenities, attracting nightlife, speeding along the BART expansion, and solidifying itself as a 'destination'. It failed to do so, and SF became increasingly the defacto place to live.
One must also blame the cities of San Mateo and Santa Clara that refused to build. Many people seeking smaller homes (1BR, Studios) turned to the city because the availability in the suburbs was nil.
There is just a ton of high paying jobs and a lack of housing.
The industry should spread out, but seems reluctant to do so.
Institute a corporate tax and earmark that tax solely for expanding housing options across the board.
Don't blame SJ: it's a world class city that's the 6th coolest city in the country, according Forbes, and is the most livable city in the state, according to U.S News/World Report. It has an outstanding and hip downtown core, so don't go blaming SJ for SF getting whacked by Silicon Valley's high cost of living. The city didn't build that many housing during all those years.
I'm sorry you have to move. But, honestly, to only have to move twice in 25 years, as a renter, is pretty amazing. I think you should be grateful for what you have had.
One thing you can do, is move to where housing is affordable and where the Section 8 housing list is open, if that could work for you. Then, you can port your Section 8 voucher back here. That's what I did.
The cheapest rent where the Section 8 list is really short - like 6 months - is Crescent City, CA.
If you need to stay here for your job, that will be rough. You could look for project based housing (meaning you get Section 8 rent prices even without already having a voucher). One place I know of is the Rosenberg building in Santa Rosa. After you live there a year, you get a section 8 voucher. Then you get on waiting lists here, if you want to port your voucher back here.
I'm sorry you have to move. But, honestly, to only have to move twice in 25 years, as a renter, is pretty amazing. I think you should be grateful for what you have had.
Agree with this, and I also think you should try your luck in a lower COL area where the rat race isn't so strong. The Bay Area has become overly competitive, it takes the fun out of life.
The river of inhumanity is not a place I want to be. I know the city will not be kind to me as a van dweller but I am left with no choice.
Another choice is to move to a new city. There are many cities where people making only $50,000/year can still afford to buy their own home. Here are 5 examples:
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoodun
No longer is there an art or music scene. No longer does SF nurture talent. The social-conscience is gone.
Some of the above examples have fantastic art or music scenes. Athens in particular is world famous for their music scene.
"Eau Claire is home to burgeoning arts and music scene that can be seen showcased in its many indoor and open air venues such as the State Theatre, Grand Little Theater, House of Rock and Sarge Boyd Bandshell in Owen Park"
I am about your age, and in the tech field as well. Moved a couple years ago to a much more affordable area and haven't looked back.
It's time to let go of the past and start anew. The Bay Area of 1995 is a completely different than that of 2018, and it will likely only get worse as time goes on.
No sense in getting angry or choked up. The quicker you accept what is best for you, the easier the transition to a life of normalcy will be.
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.
