If I may channel the thoughts of the ones who believe so, it is "because there is no possible virtuous path to wealth - all riches are stolen, all greater wealth is tricked from the lesser, all luxury is brought on the backs of the downtrodden, the unlucky, and those who just want a fair chance. If we had our way, their riches would be forcibly stripped from them and transferred to the poor, who they have so harmed, by the avenue of a powerful and benevolent all-encompassing government - but we still don't have the wherewithal to bring this about. Not yet. So for now we must simply make do with actions like this."Why does being wealthier mean you have less of a right to live somewhere?
So where are the SF version of the Koch brothers who can coerce, cajole, threaten, or blackmail the current officials into seeing things their way? Or barring that, pour money into candidates who will?When the people who already live there make rules and regulations that discourage the wealthy from moving in, I suppose.
Fair enough, although that begs the question "why would you want to live in such a god awful place? New York and Chicago have similarly absurdly priced central neighborhoods, but they are also well supplied with quality(ish) public transportation. Living in an undrivable city with no public transportation just seems like a really poor choice, and I don't have much sympathy for that.The geography of the area (water on three sides, few bridges, etc) and the density (5x houston) means that even a 5-10 mile commute is an hour or three every single day there and back.
It's not comparable to Houston.
That is exactly what I am saying. This is no different from any other high density metroplex. Teachers in NYC or Chicago don't get to live in Manhattan or the Loop. Hell, they can barely afford to live in the ritzy areas in Houston. As for the desire to give the lower class a place in the city, that's nice on paper, but its a blatantly unsustainable and token gesture. There is no possible way that they can fill the demand for low-cost housing inside SF, so at best they can allow some small % of people a place there. Then its a question of who gets these high demand places? It creates a system not unlike the rent-controlled apts of NYC, where having access to an artificially low-priced housing unit is just another form of wealth.That being said, your statement essentially says, "You, teacher, are only going to make maybe $60k per year. This means you have the choice between sharing a two bedroom apartment with three other people, or you waste 2 hours a day driving (and $9k per year for the car) so you can afford a small home or larger apartment well away from the city." It's because they want to give people in the lower class a place in their city that they are making a lot of these rules (also for many other more selfish reasons, but this is the only one I can broadly agree with, and only after a little arm twisting anyway).
'Tis better to rule in Nacodoches than serve in Arlington.But then you have to live in non-DFW/Houston/Austin areas of Texas...
It is a rival. It is really a lovely town with an odd mix of people.just so we're clear you did just admit that Nacadoches is basically Hell.
Truth. I was going to add the recent up-swings of Hoboken and Long Island City along with Jersey City, but the point is still the same.So, I can only approach this from my own NYC-area-ish perspective, but the problem (aside from NIMBY-ism in general) is really tied to the lack of housing supply and the inability (or unwillingness) of city and business leaders to invest in creating secondary city centers. Manhattan's position as the center of everything has a lot of historical and infrastructural inertia behind it, but one reason why places like DUMBO and Jersey City are flourishing is because the locals in each went out of their way to grow those areas as semi-self-sufficient zones that catered to a wide(r) range of socioeconomic players.
Some of this is historical accident (uncomfortable but true, Jersey City would simply not be where it is today had 9/11 not happened), but for the most part locals have been able to use this to create strong non-Manhattan neighborhoods.
Unfortunately, both of those areas are also starting to become priced-out thanks to even relatively affluent people no longer being able to afford Manhattan but needing to stay close.
A friend of mine thinks that a large part of this is due to the perception (which may or may not be true) that New York City is one of the few places on the planet where real estate investment purely on price movement is a near sure thing, and every time there is a notable financial or social upswing or downswing somewhere else on the planet, foreign investors stick their money in NYC housing. He's noted (he's Chinese-American and pays very close attention to Chinese politics) that every time there's a shakedown in China as someone comes into power and starts ethics/corruption investigations of their political rivals, there is a jump in NYC housing prices.
Even better, open up a restaurant, call it "The Itis."tl;dr: Some people want to live in SF, but they don't want to pay the high cost of living there. They are hoping to convince the government to create a situation where market forces are reversed.
All they need to do is decrease police funding. There are currently nearly 3,000 officers serving the SFPD and Sheriff's department. If they decimate that and retain only the 300 lowest paid officers then housing costs will plummet. As a bonus, they'd be saving well over $450 million dollars a year!
Problem solved.
Oh, we did that! It's called Camden. And look how well that turned out!tl;dr: Some people want to live in SF, but they don't want to pay the high cost of living there. They are hoping to convince the government to create a situation where market forces are reversed.
All they need to do is decrease police funding. There are currently nearly 3,000 officers serving the SFPD and Sheriff's department. If they decimate that and retain only the 300 lowest paid officers then housing costs will plummet. As a bonus, they'd be saving well over $450 million dollars a year!
Problem solved.
So you match our assumptions with your own? I've been to SF a number of times, and its a beautiful area. I've also had a job relocate to Silicon Valley and I chose not to follow it because of the housing and tax situation over there (aside from the fact that any company in dire financial straits that decides to move from Houston to Menlo Park is not very smart.)ITT: People who don't live near SF and have probably never been to SF talk about how horrible it is based on... information from a spreadsheet.
I'll see your San Fran and raise you Columbus Circle/Central Park South in Manhattan.Just looking at a "spreadsheet" view of the housing market there and....good lord.
http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/
Just....good lord. Flee. Stay far away from that market. That is a disaster waiting to happen.
There's a reason I didn't use the term "social justice" in my OP. Because IMO Justice is 1 thing only. And it's not often in accordance with our Laws. But it had to be alluded to one way or another.As for justice? Spit in one hand and beg for justice in the other and see which comes first. Its not great, but its life. And the sooner people accept the realities around them the sooner they can actually change them.
Absolutely, but the same problem persists. Pubtrans just helped hold it off until recently because you could always move to somewhere else within the pubtrans network. We've reached the point where that's not necessarily true anymore, and unlike in the 80s when it was the affluent leaving because they could easily afford a car or a full-fledged train ticket, low-income residents are having to make the unpleasant choice between substantially higher rent or moving way out and buying a car and actually spending hours in transit.I ninja edited you. The difference is in Public Trans. According to Steinman living in Oakland or San Jose isn't a viable alternative because it will take you hours to get into San Fran. That's very different from Manhattan.
They're not bad in comparison to the rest of NYC, no, but that's not really saying much. Keep in mind, a lot of the truly convenient areas in Northern NJ and Long Island are getting rapidly much more expensive. Staten Island is sort of iffy, because a lot of people there own already.Is it really that bad all the way out on like Rockaway, Long Island, Jersey, or Staten? I assumed those places were still affordable.
Edit: Looking at the prices on Zillow it doesn't seem that bad. All 4 of those have median prices under 400., Jersey is only 270. Which is still really high for Texas, but this is NYC. Well...technically it's Jersey.
What are you quoting, here?If I may channel the thoughts of the ones who believe so, it is "because there is no possible virtuous path to wealth - all riches are stolen, all greater wealth is tricked from the lesser, all luxury is brought on the backs of the downtrodden, the unlucky, and those who just want a fair chance. If we had our way, their riches would be forcibly stripped from them and transferred to the poor, who they have so harmed, by the avenue of a powerful and benevolent all-encompassing government - but we still don't have the wherewithal to bring this about. Not yet. So for now we must simply make do with actions like this."
It's not a quote, I just used the quotation marks to clearly denote what isn't my thinking.What are you quoting, here?
I don't know what the rules are in SF, but in NY, you are only allowed to hand a rent-controlled apartment down once. After that, the apartment can be raised to market value, or evicted (something like that). I don't know a ton about the NY rent laws, but we ran into a problem like this when were living in Queens. The guy who bought our building tried some very illegal tactics to scare people (including us) out of our apartments. That's a risk you have to take as a property buyer; you can't just buy a lived-in space and be allowed to kick people out who lawfully have a lease. You either have to wait them out, hope they leave on their own, or be really sneaky and try to catch someone who isn't following the regulations of their lease.Does the apartment owner owe them well-below-market housing? Until they die? What if that never happens, they marry someone younger, and die, and that person marries someone younger, then dies, keeping the same lease active for decades?
Personally, I believe that all wealth derives from the lesser, but I would not classify it as "stolen." Nor would I say that the poor are intrinsically harmed by the wealthy (by virtue of either simply existing).It's not a quote, I just used the quotation marks to clearly denote what isn't my thinking.
I'd love to see this with an overlay that shows how many people per square mile live in each county.Mapped in finer detail than by state, several geographic patterns are clearer. No single county in America has a one-bedroom housing wage below the federal minimum wage of $7.25 (several counties in Arkansas come in at $7.98).
Well, for supposedly not quoting anyone specifically, you came pretty darned close.It's not a quote, I just used the quotation marks to clearly denote what isn't my thinking.