OT: the housing crisis in the Bay Area (and beyond...)

[XXtwindad]

Perhaps nowhere in the US has the battle over affordable housing reached such a fever pitch as in the Bay Area. One possible attempt to mitigate the problem, SB50, would change zoning ordinances to allow for denser building around "job rich" areas and adjacent to transit hubs.

Contra Costa and its affluent suburbs would seem to be the most impacted. Almost every local city council has opposed the measure.

From Walnut Creek Mayor Cindy Silva:

“Most of the people who came to California from New York in the 19th century wanted more wide open space. They didn’t want to live in apartment buildings,” said Walnut Creek Mayor Cindy Silva.

She defended single-family homes as intrinsic to the personality of the state: “It’s not so much that it’s sacrosanct, but it’s how we evolved.”

Interestingly enough, due to populations less than 600,000 bring exempt, one of the most affluent counties in the country is exempt - Marin County.

There are some talented thinkers and writers on this site. I'm interested to hear from others.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sfchronicle.com/bayareahousingcrisis/amp/Wealthy-Bay-Area-suburbs-could-have-a-whole-new-13834033.php

[Mikej]

So, just a not in my area type of thing?

[FlashUNC]

It's a fig leaf argument from the burbs. We all know the real reason. And I say that as someone who's part of the problem having moved here in the last half decade.

But you can't freeze communities in amber, particularly affluent suburbs that don't want to ever change (ahem, Mountain View.)

The cascade effect across geographies and socio-economic levels has been stunning to see happen.

There should be an effort to preserve the character and unique nature of these communities, but there has to be some recognition too that housing needs to increase substantially to reduce the incredible issues we're seeing.

[jimcav]

sometimes i daydream about using my GI-bill and staring over in a new career. To me it seems everything is reactive: example near me in San Diego county: population goes up, schools get stupid-crowded, they build a new school. Too bad it can't be better designed from the get-go. But the jobs need to be better placed so that residential development can follow. When I was first stationed out here, it was easy to drive to the mountains in Idyllwild, now it is practically non-stop tract home suburbia through Temecula, Menifee, Hemet, with many of those people doing long commutes into San Diego or Riverside etc. Maybe if i went back and studied urban planning I'd learn there be some worse consequence of business expanding with satellite locations in other areas, but right now it seems like the large employee companies are too consolidated and competition for homes nearby just pushes folks farther and farther, with larger commutes etc.

[zmalwo]

She defended single-family homes as intrinsic to the personality of the state: “It’s not so much that it’s sacrosanct, but it’s how we evolved.”

Let's see how many houses she has in the bay area, and if there's any actuary here please let us how much value per house would lose once tall buildings are approved. It's not about "preserving" the tradition. tall mansions significantly lowers single family house value in an area like SF because tall buildings allows much more capita per area. When you see your house or houses value going up 10 folds in a decade no house owners wants to lose that money. I bet those officials owns lots and lots of houses in SF area. in the end it's all about money of those who make the rules. IMHO.

[prototoast]

Disclaimer: I own a single family home in Contra Costa County. I also have a strong preference for more rural living.

Density restrictions aren't making places better. Contra Costa County kind of sucks. From a biking perspective, I like that I have easy access to Mount Diablo, but I go out of my way to avoid the majority of roads in the county, because they're too narrow, with high traffic, and with either no shoulder or cars parked all along the street. I don't know what vision they think they're going for, but it's not a smart one. The new developments going in around San Ramon and Livermore are downright dystopian to me (for those of you not in the area, picture identical 3,500 sq ft homes on 5,000 sq ft lots, packed 2-3 deep in housing developments).

The quote you highlighted from the story about people moving to California in the 19th century really highlights how ridiculous is. First, that somehow California should still be trying to emulate the vision of people who have been dead for over 100 years, and second, because that vision is already gone. There are still decent open spaces (protected state/regional land), but the vast majority of single family homes are packed in tightly with other single family homes--they're not coming with a lot of land. The single family homes near downtown Walnut Creek / BART are garbage--very expensive garbage, but they tend to be very small, run down, and rented out to commuters who want easy access to public transit. It's hard to imagine a worse design than that.

Density isn't really the problem in the area. What could actually improve quality of life is to have more density, more mixed zoning, and better public transit. You want to put people near where they want to be. These aren't farming towns anymore, and they're not going to be in the future.

[prototoast]

Let's see how many houses she has in the bay area, and if there's any actuary here please let us how much value per house would lose once tall buildings are approved. It's not about "preserving" the tradition. tall mansions significantly lowers single family house value in an area like SF because tall buildings allows much more capita per area. When you see your house or houses value going up 10 folds in a decade no house owners wants to lose that money. I bet those officials owns lots and lots of houses in SF area. in the end it's all about money of those who make the rules. IMHO.

It may feel like that in the short term, but it is not inevitable. Look at land in Manhattan, Singapore, Hong Kong, or Tokyo. High density housing can make housing less scarce, and push down the value of your property, the fact that your lot can then be used for a multi-story, multi-unit building thus makes it more valuable. So much of the resistance to development in the Bay Area feels like a fight for something that's already gone, or never actually existed.

[Ken Robb]

I was a real estate broker in San Diego for 36 years. One of the aspects of choosing a home that was hardest for buyers to properly evaluate was length/difficulty of commute. Many people were willing to add 15-20 minutes or more each way if they could get a "nicer/bigger" home farther out. Some of this may have been partly due to the person doing the commuting not being the only person involved in choosing the home.

For years I commented to people in and out of the RE business to imagine what our Clairemont neighborhood would be worth as raw land rather than a 1959-69 area of tract housing. It is close to beaches, shopping, downtown sporting venues, etc. Well, a few years ago people owning homes there with ocean/Mission Bay views began remodeling, adding second stories, etc. Then since that showed the neighborhood was on the upswing owners of non-view properties decided that it made sense for them to improve their homes too rather than move to a newer area farther out.

About 30 years ago we got our first luxury high-rise condo building downtown. The prediction was that it would appeal mostly to people who worked downtown and wanted to avoid commuting from suburban areas. It enjoyed modest success and that led to more new condos downtown. The people buying them wanted more shops and restaurants near their new condos so the whole area became a hotbed of urban renewal.

The funny thing is that while this was happening there were many new office buildings and industrial parks built out in the suburbs. Now many downtown dwellers commute AWAY from downtown to work and rush hour traffic runs opposite to the way it did 30-40 years ago. It seems that lots of downtown residents are there for the hip urban lifestyle and they don't mind commuting to their suburban workplaces.

A big challenge for planners of mass transit has to be how to solve the problem of "the last mile". It's great to ride a train to work if you are close enough to walk from home to the station and from the station to work. Once upon a time my office was in Rockefeller Center and economics forced me to live on Long Island. The LIRR was ok but it got me to Penn Station where I had to catch a subway uptown so my commute was about 75 minutes each way. That got me to move to Forest Hills/Jamaica in Queens where my "Junior One-bedroom" was affordable, included underground parking, and was a one block walk to the IND subway which stopped in the basement of my office building. It worked but I looked forward to a time when I could own a house with a yard. :)

[MattTuck]

I was a real estate broker in San Diego for 36 years.

So, we now have our resident scapegoat :)


It seems like a hugely complex issue with a multitude of contributing factors and underlying causes. I'm not a CA citizen, but I would be against a policy here in NH that allowed the state to take control of the housing market like that.

On the other hand, if I own my house in Walnut ridge, and I retired, and I wanted to convert it into a 2 or 3 unit property so that I could live in it, and rent out the other units for income, I think I should have the right to do that within reason (maintaining the previous appearance and footprint, providing adequate off street parking, etc.) . If local codes prevent that, then I suppose this law may make sense to give people that freedom.

At a broader level, I don't really see the problem with housing affordability. Many parts of the country have sub 5% unemployment rates and better cost of living than the bay area. My memory is foggy, but pretty sure the declaration of independence listed life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness as unalienable rights. Don't remember it including the right to live in a beautiful climate.

[pdonk]

So, we now have our resident scapegoat :)




Actually I'm actually the scapegoat - a planner that works for a developer.

This topic is rich with material from:
eminent domain
constitutional law
climate change
market demand
land supply
urban design
NIMBY and BANANA
transportation planning
economic development
social planning
demographics
urban history
neighbourhood evolution

When you draw a venn diagram showing good planning it is really just a giant blobwith no easy point of intersection visible under the layers.

Have so much to write, but need to focus on work.

[prototoast]

At a broader level, I don't really see the problem with housing affordability. Many parts of the country have sub 5% unemployment rates and better cost of living than the bay area.

A lot of this has to do with the types of jobs in the Bay Area, and the types of jobs in other parts of the country. It's not hard for a doctor to find work in most parts of the country, but it's not so easy for people in high tech fields. Web developers are fairly mobile, but for someone doing artificial intelligence research, outside of the bay area, realistic job prospects really only exist in a few key cities.

Personally, I came to the Bay Area for work. I am an economist and I could probably find work in most major cities (particularly Washington and New York, but housing costs aren't much different there), but it would be a challenge for me to find work in probably 40 of the 50 states.

Aligning jobs and housing is a real challenge, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows that restricting the housing stock doesn't lead to a proportionate dispersion of jobs.

[unterhausen]

the state doesn't really have to take control of the market, just get out of the way. The historic village center of the township I live in could not be built today due to zoning laws. This is true in a lot of places.

Density isn't going to bring undesirable people in most areas, it probably will bring nice walkable spaces that might not be so unsustainable though. And density doesn't mean just high rise buildings, in Europe there are a lot of very densely built towns that only have 3 story buildings. Certainly beats the exurban hell that most of NoVa has become.

[Elefantino]

It's a fig leaf argument from the burbs. We all know the real reason.
It's the unspoken reality, even in Oakland and Berkeley.

And I say that as someone who's part of the problem.
The other part of the problem is the people who sell for astronomical prices, particularly as the result of bidding wars, which has artificially driven up the cost of all real estate and further exacerbated the affordable housing problem. I'm talking about all the tech bros who flip homes for fun because they've got nothing else to do.

I'm also looking in the mirror. However, I'm never coming back so I do not feel guilty.

[avalonracing]

I'd like to live in the Bay Area over any other place in this country but the housing costs are nuts. My solution... anyone who is physically able but chooses not to take advantage of the great weather and outdoor attractions should be required to move to someplace else where they can happily play their video games and watch Netflix in climate-controlled comfort.

-Frustrated in Maryland where it was 84ºF and humid last week and 47ºF and raining this morning.

[XXtwindad]

It's a fig leaf argument from the burbs. We all know the real reason. And I say that as someone who's part of the problem having moved here in the last half decade.

But you can't freeze communities in amber, particularly affluent suburbs that don't want to ever change (ahem, Mountain View.)

The cascade effect across geographies and socio-economic levels has been stunning to see happen.

There should be an effort to preserve the character and unique nature of these communities, but there has to be some recognition too that housing needs to increase substantially to reduce the incredible issues we're seeing.

This is an interesting statement. Why do you identify as "part of the problem?" Is it your relatively recent tenure in the Bay Area? Income level? Occupation? Ethnicity? Other?

[DuddyJ]

Its funny the major of Walnut Creek is defending single family homes while apartment buildings and complexes are taking over Walnut Creek.... The amount of apartment construction near BART is insane.

[XXtwindad]

So, we now have our resident scapegoat :)


It seems like a hugely complex issue with a multitude of contributing factors and underlying causes. I'm not a CA citizen, but I would be against a policy here in NH that allowed the state to take control of the housing market like that.

On the other hand, if I own my house in Walnut ridge, and I retired, and I wanted to convert it into a 2 or 3 unit property so that I could live in it, and rent out the other units for income, I think I should have the right to do that within reason (maintaining the previous appearance and footprint, providing adequate off street parking, etc.) . If local codes prevent that, then I suppose this law may make sense to give people that freedom.

At a broader level, I don't really see the problem with housing affordability. Many parts of the country have sub 5% unemployment rates and better cost of living than the bay area. My memory is foggy, but pretty sure the declaration of independence listed life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness as unalienable rights. Don't remember it including the right to live in a beautiful climate.

When I first moved to San Francisco, in December of 1989, I rented a studio in the Tenderloin for $325 a month. The average Tenderloin studio now goes for $1,800 per month. That area has long been considered San Francisco's "seedy" neighborhood, although it is much more gentrified since I last lived there.

I do believe that people besides high tech workers should be able to call the Bay Area home.

[Bostic]

I spent Saturday with my wife looking at various homes along the San Francisco Peninsula (San Mateo to Mountain View) to see what one million will buy. It ran the gamut from turn key narrow town homes with zero actual living space to 900 square feet absolute wrecks that have had not a dime of money spent on upkeep in 30 years. One had an illegal storage shed converted to a bedroom in the backyard. Another home was just ok but you'd be a prisoner on the street during rush hour and the weekends from traffic.

Any Condo in a somewhat nice area is snapped up almost immediately.

[mtechnica]

I do believe that people besides high tech workers should be able to call the Bay Area home.

Indeed. The problem is there are restaurants, retail stores, and countless other forms of employment where people are needed in the area, but these jobs don’t pay enough for their employees to actually live where near they work. If everyone that made less than 100k a year just left I’d be curious what would happen. The crazy thing is I’m a mechanical engineer and I could barely afford a garbage apartment in that area. Something has to give eventually.

[Ozz]

...the other part of the problem is the people who sell for astronomical prices, .....

They should take less than what is offered? This makes no sense to me....buyers drive up prices...not the sellers.

[mtechnica]

They should take less than what is offered? This makes no sense to me....buyers drive up prices...not the sellers.

What sucks too is that people trying to get their money out of China or wherever can buy houses in North America then let them sit empty.

[Ozz]

What sucks too is that people trying to get their money out of China or wherever can buy houses in North America then let them sit empty.
Oh I know....there are a couple houses on my street that sold last year and have been empty. No idea who the buyers were....

At least a garden service comes by once a month to mow the lawns and clean up......

IIRC, a similar think happened to Vancouver when Hong Kong was handed over to PRC.

[bicycletricycle]

Increasing housing supply is the only real way to push housing prices down. Let people build or watch the prices increase.

[mtechnica]

Oh I know....there are a couple houses on my street that sold last year and have been empty. No idea who the buyers were....

At least a garden service comes by once a month to mow the lawns and clean up......

IIRC, a similar think happened to Vancouver when Hong Kong was handed over to PRC.

Yeah I’m pretty sure Vancouvers situation is at least as bad as the Bay Area.

[prototoast]

Yeah I’m pretty sure Vancouvers situation is at least as bad as the Bay Area.

Some of this is just foreign money parking, but some of this is also abet on more relaxed zoning laws. I know in Menlo Park, where I previously worked, a lot of v properties that sat vacant we're being held as companies lobbied for the town to allow them to build larger units. It doesn't make sense to develop a single family home or small multi-family home if you think in the near future you could be able to develop a larger residential and/or commercial structure.

[ZeKGB]

I live in Hollister, which is at about the outer edge of exurban Silicon Valley and our local politics is close to 100% consumed with development issues brought about by the scarcity of housing in the South Bay Area. There aren't any easy answers but in general I think Gov Newsom is on the right track by using lots of sticks and a few carrots to get local governments to approve higher density developments.

[echappist]

Yeah I’m pretty sure Vancouvers situation is at least as bad as the Bay Area.
at least they decided to do something about it (iirc, there's a tax to be paid for letting a residence go unoccupied)

[FlashUNC]

It's the unspoken reality, even in Oakland and Berkeley.


The other part of the problem is the people who sell for astronomical prices, particularly as the result of bidding wars, which has artificially driven up the cost of all real estate and further exacerbated the affordable housing problem. I'm talking about all the tech bros who flip homes for fun because they've got nothing else to do.

I'm also looking in the mirror. However, I'm never coming back so I do not feel guilty.

Spare bike is always on the hook if you're back in the hood and want to go for a spin.

This is an interesting statement. Why do you identify as "part of the problem?" Is it your relatively recent tenure in the Bay Area? Income level? Occupation? Ethnicity? Other?

A late stage Millenial white dude working in a tech-adjacent industry who moved into the Bay in the last 10 years, and lives in an absurdly expensive apartment in part of a gentrifying section of West Berkeley.

I am 100% emblematic of the problem for huge section of the East Bay, and the Bay Area more broadly. Just look at what's happening in West Oakland right now.

[pdonk]

at least they decided to do something about it (iirc, there's a tax to be paid for letting a residence go unoccupied)

There is both a non residents tax and a non occupancy tax.

In Ontario we have a foreign purchasers tax. What we have found on our projects is that the foreign investors range depending largely by community where the project is and value of homes being sold.

In terms the comment about condos and high density near the BART. In Ontario it is required that the density be in the 200 people / jobs per ha range (80 people and jobs /acre) or about 60 units/ha (30 units/acre). When you consider the investment by the "public" sector in transit, it makes sense.

For context a typical low density single family development contains 8 units/acre and a moderate density townhouse project is in the 15 units /acre range.

The architects of our planning by numbers claim that 2o units/acre is what is needed to support bus transit.

Finally, in terms of valuation of land, one also has to look at the construction cost per unit and sales price per unit. Just because you can cram units into a site, does not always make the most economic sense as a developer.

I think about this stuff all day every day.

[m4rk540]

Increasing housing supply is the only real way to push housing prices down. Let people build or watch the prices increase.

But there's no incentive to build "affordable" housing. Rents increased 7% in Los Angeles and the majority of construction is for luxury units.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/business/revitalization-projects-reawaken-downtown-los-angeles.html

[XXtwindad]

Spare bike is always on the hook if you're back in the hood and want to go for a spin.



A late stage Millenial white dude working in a tech-adjacent industry who moved into the Bay in the last 10 years, and lives in an absurdly expensive apartment in part of a gentrifying section of West Berkeley.

I am 100% emblematic of the problem for huge section of the East Bay, and the Bay Area more broadly. Just look at what's happening in West Oakland right now.

Well, this is a complicated problem, isn't it? I could certainly demonize large swaths of the tech community. But that would be disingenuous on my part. Several of my long-term clients come from the tech world. So, as much as I can castigate techies for all the changes they've wrought, I rely on them for my income.

I have a friend who is more sanguine about the transformation of the City. (Not coincidentally, he's also more affluent, so he's mostly inured from the consequences) He compared the situation to the Gay community replacing the Irish/Italian community in the Castro. But I don't see it. When the Gay influx happened in the 70s, it didn't jack up real estate prices in Portrero Hill and beyond.

There definitely is - and should be - a role for government in the solution.

[bicycletricycle]

You might want to put quotes on "luxury units" as well :)

What is affordable housing? Affordable is what the people who want to rent a place can afford right? If the rent was truly unaffordable nobody would rent it and the price would come down.

If a location is in high demand the housing prices should go up. It is the fairest way to ration the sought after commodity. If you cannot afford the cost of living in a location you should move. I have moved multiple times because I could not afford the cost of living in an area. We do not have a right to live in a particular location.

Anyways, the government has the ability to artificially raise the incentives to build "affordable housing" if they want to. I do not think these programs tend to work very well (corruption around rent control and developer incentives is extremely common) but they have levers that they can use, some of which are outlined in the report you linked to.

Whatever anyone does or doesn't do increasing supply or decreasing demand is the only way to reduce costs. How you accomplish this is up for debate.

But there's no incentive to build "affordable" housing. Rents increased 7% in Los Angeles and the majority of construction is for luxury units.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/05/business/revitalization-projects-reawaken-downtown-los-angeles.html

[82Picchio]

Snip:
A late stage Millenial white dude working in a tech-adjacent industry who moved into the Bay in the last 10 years, and lives in an absurdly expensive apartment in part of a gentrifying section of West Berkeley.

I am 100% emblematic of the problem for huge section of the East Bay, and the Bay Area more broadly.

As much as Flash is emblematic of the problem (I'll personally vouch for that), I am on the flip side of the problem and am just as responsible for it: I bought my starter house in 1998 in Upper Rockridge neighborhood in Oakland. You couldn't get a garage for what I paid for the house back then. And I have to tell you, I am not moving. The house is almost paid off and even if I sold it for well into seven figures, all I could afford would be a similarly-sized bungalow, the only difference being a huge leap in property taxes. My neighborhood is fully developed, as is most of Oakland hills and foothills and they aren't going to put in any more housing stock up here and riding is spectacular. In the flats, where multi-story condominium and apartment buildings are breeding like bunnies (construction only delayed by a series of arson fires going on for three years now), it's an altogether different story.

[weisan]

Are we looking at the future of Austin, Texas?

[XXtwindad]

Are we looking at the future of Austin, Texas?

Austin ranks very high on the list of cities that ex Bay Area people moved to. So, there's part of your answer ...

[echappist]

We could look to Singapore for what could be accomplished. But i dont imagine anything remotely comparable to be accomplished.

California, for all intents and purposes, might as well be Monaco...

[AngryScientist]

Snip:

I bought my starter house in 1998...

even if I sold it for well into seven figures,

this is the part that baffles me about the bay area.

where is all the money coming from? Is there really enough career opportunity paying enough to allow young people to break into "starter homes" for deep into the seven figure territory?

seems like a bubble on the verge of bust when the number of buyers runs out for the asking prices...

rent is a totally different story, of course...

[FlashUNC]

this is the part that baffles me about the bay area.

where is all the money coming from? Is there really enough career opportunity paying enough to allow young people to break into "starter homes" for deep into the seven figure territory?

seems like a bubble on the verge of bust when the number of buyers runs out for the asking prices...

rent is a totally different story, of course...

Google, Facebook, Salesforce. Take your pick. Recent study came out, 1 in every 11,000 people in San Francisco is a Billionaire. The economics of everything are so out of whack because of the distortion field that is tech money.

[prototoast]

this is the part that baffles me about the bay area.

where is all the money coming from? Is there really enough career opportunity paying enough to allow young people to break into "starter homes" for deep into the seven figure territory?

seems like a bubble on the verge of bust when the number of buyers runs out for the asking prices...

rent is a totally different story, of course...

People fresh out of college are making 80-120k/year here. Many of the large companies' stock has appreciated so much that those who were getting even modest stock grants/options 10 years ago have a lot of money to drop right now. Venture funding makes a lot of speculative millionaires. And that's before you get into the doctors, lawyers, professors, accountants, and other professionals who one would expect to be well-compensated.

[bward1028]

Google, Facebook, Salesforce. Take your pick. Recent study came out, 1 in every 11,000 people in San Francisco is a Billionaire. The economics of everything are so out of whack because of the distortion field that is tech money.

That's still only ~80 billionaires.

One thing people forget is that SF has a population of 885k, basically the same as Columbus Oh. Austin's more populous.

[GonaSovereign]

[QUOTE=pdonk;2540074]Actually I'm actually the scapegoat - a planner that works for a developer.

Just as long as you aren't the guy knocking down the Matador to build condos. That guy will be haunted by the ghost of Leonard Cohen.

[ultraman6970]

885k??? thought more people lived there.

[prototoast]

885k??? thought more people lived there.

There's about 10 million people in the broader "Bay area" including San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and surrounding counties.

[ojingoh]

Oh I know....there are a couple houses on my street that sold last year and have been empty. No idea who the buyers were....

At least a garden service comes by once a month to mow the lawns and clean up......

IIRC, a similar think happened to Vancouver when Hong Kong was handed over to PRC.

https://www.seattletimes.com/business/billions-in-dirty-cash-helped-fuel-vancouver-b-c-s-housing-boom/

[GonaSovereign]

Yeah I’m pretty sure Vancouvers situation is at least as bad as the Bay Area.

And arguably worse. In the Bay Area there are head offices and plenty of high-paying jobs fuelling the situation. There are very few notable head offices in Vancouver, and a solid percentage of housing stock is bought up by people paying with ¥ they want out of China, often leaving the property empty and often not contributing to the local economy. So the city becomes poorer while property is more expensive. Lose lose. Too bad, because it's a lovely place. Admittedly prices are coming down now, thanks in part to gov't intervention.

[pdonk]

[QUOTE=pdonk;2540074]Actually I'm actually the scapegoat - a planner that works for a developer.

Just as long as you aren't the guy knocking down the Matador to build condos. That guy will be haunted by the ghost of Leonard Cohen.

I work in the 905. Making rural roads less safe

[FlashUNC]

That's still only ~80 billionaires.

One thing people forget is that SF has a population of 885k, basically the same as Columbus Oh. Austin's more populous.

How many billionaires they got in Columbus?

The wealth concentration here has thrown everything else completely out of whack.

[quehill]

The fact that this conversation has gotten to four pages and no one has brought up Proposition 13 yet is crazy/interesting/crazy-interesting.

Just to dip my toe in the very deep waters:

Prop 13 incentivizes housing speculation and buying in at ANY price, because it's only going to cost more tomorrow and in the unlikely event that home prices go down you can get a reappraisal anyway.

Prop 13 disincentivizes local governments from zoning for new housing, of any kind, because over even the mid-term housing is a tax base loser for governments.

Add localized inflation from tech money to the above and you get the Bay Area housing market.

[GonaSovereign]

[QUOTE=GonaSovereign;2540256]

I work in the 905. Making rural roads less safe

Semi-serious question: was riding down Heritage Rd in the 905 last weekend, looking at the farms morphing into tract housing. Between my tears I wondered if there is a way to incentivize developers to fund wide paved shoulders as an offset to all the new stoplights and distracted parents. The current admin is unlikely to budge on that one, but it seems like a potential win...

(Thread back on track: I live in Toronto and work in the Bay Area.)

[XXtwindad]

The fact that this conversation has gotten to four pages and no one has brought up Proposition 13 yet is crazy/interesting/crazy-interesting.

Just to dip my toe in the very deep waters:

Prop 13 incentivizes housing speculation and buying in at ANY price, because it's only going to cost more tomorrow and in the unlikely event that home prices go down you can get a reappraisal anyway.

Prop 13 disincentivizes local governments from zoning for new housing, of any kind, because over even the mid-term housing is a tax base loser for governments.

Add localized inflation from tech money to the above and you get the Bay Area housing market.

AKA rent control of owners. Definitely one of the elephants in the room.

[muz]

AKA rent control of owners. Definitely one of the elephants in the room.

Even worse is that Prop 13 applies to commercial real estate as well. As a result, commercial real estate NEVER gets sold, which means the tax basis is never leveled up. You have a holding company that owns the property, and you sell the company instead of the property.

[buddybikes]

>>evelopers to fund wide paved shoulders as an offset to all the new stoplights and distracted parents.

Don't worry, they will just make bigger/wider SUV's to offset the wider road

[93KgBike]

I tend to agree that if the rent in an area outstrips one's ability to earn, then yeah, you have to move.

A lot of us lived like this as young people. But a lot of us thought, go to school, find work, problem solved.

We did not think we'd lose, in a single generation, the entire manufacturing and small farm base. There's no longer a single pharmaceutical manufacturer in New Jersey.

The rent is too high, for many, because pricing is pegged to wealth rather than wages.

There's no such thing as a housing crisis. There are houses. There are people. There are banks.

But all the union-wage jobs that rebuilt the world after WWII are now slave wage jobs farmed out to low-rent dictators and acolyte kleptocracies.

[HugoBear]

There has been talk of Bay Area appreciation/bubble since I lived there in late 90’s/early 2000’s.
There was recent research showing wage growth in major cities from 2000-2017 and 2010-2017.
It also looked at housing costs.
When income growth is taken into consideration, the gap for Bay Area is much lower than many cities.
Miami had the worst but the data is skewed by low incomes of rich retirees.
The younger non super rich share places among several tenants or just don’t put much in savings. Many are cool with this until they want to have a family.
It became very clear to me that my income upside was not that high so we decided to move in 2001.
It is a great place if you can afford the freight.

[paredown]

I tend to agree that if the rent in an area outstrips one's ability to earn, then yeah, you have to move.

A lot of us lived like this as young people. But a lot of us thought, go to school, find work, problem solved.

We did not think we'd lose, in a single generation, the entire manufacturing and small farm base. There's no longer a single pharmaceutical manufacturer in New Jersey.

The rent is too high, for many, because pricing is pegged to wealth rather than wages.

There's no such thing as a housing crisis. There are houses. There are people. There are banks.

But all the union-wage jobs that rebuilt the world after WWII are now slave wage jobs farmed out to low-rent dictators and acolyte kleptocracies.
Yes--and the elites from those kleptocracies and dictatorships then end up as major participants in the global pool of (sometimes hot) money, that moves to where the opportunities are--like London, Vancouver, New York, San Francisco-- that distorts local economies and housing prices.

Someone already mentioned the lack of really well-paying jobs in Vancouver, and in terms of affordability index (wages to house prices) it is one of the three worst in the world).

Here's a US comparison of affordability:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/05/where-the-house-price-to-income-ratio-is-most-out-of-whack/561404/

Here's the international comparison--2017--I know I have seen a different study--but it puts Hong Kong first, Vancouver 3rd and San Francisco 9th:
https://www.scmp.com/business/article/2064554/hong-kong-named-most-expensive-housing-market-world-seventh-straight-year
Here's Bloomberg from 2018--their index places San Francisco second after Hong Kong--and Vancouver is only at 16th:
https://www.bloomberg.com/

[pdonk]

[QUOTE=pdonk;2540272]

Semi-serious question: was riding down Heritage Rd in the 905 last weekend, looking at the farms morphing into tract housing. Between my tears I wondered if there is a way to incentivize developers to fund wide paved shoulders as an offset to all the new stoplights and distracted parents. The current admin is unlikely to budge on that one, but it seems like a potential win...

(Thread back on track: I live in Toronto and work in the Bay Area.)

The developer typically has to provide land for road widenings, in that instance it is either Peel or Brampton's responsibility to program the cross section, which is paid for through Development Charges, paid by the developer and ultimately the new home buyer. Just remember every social service/park/feature you want to see in a community is ultimately paid for by the end user.

[pobrien]

A couple of posts commented on Vancouver house pricing being high and that is certainly true. This applies to condominiums and the like as well.

One aspect that has not been mentioned is the recent 'revelation' that Chinese interests has washed approximately $5 billion of illicit money in Vancouver real estate and in the local casinos. This sounds like a movie script.

The federal and provincial governments are quite embarrassed that the money laundering has gone on for so long and nobody flagged it for investigation. It is only now that our elected officials are being forced to investigate the matter.

The city is beautiful and many Asians call it home. The 'average' people either rent expensive apartments (sharing them with others quite often) or live in the suburbs where prices are not quite as high as in the city. Long commutes are the norm. I could not imagine commuting to and from the city. Chaos.

[MattTuck]

When I first moved to San Francisco, in December of 1989, I rented a studio in the Tenderloin for $325 a month. The average Tenderloin studio now goes for $1,800 per month. That area has long been considered San Francisco's "seedy" neighborhood, although it is much more gentrified since I last lived there.

I do believe that people besides high tech workers should be able to call the Bay Area home.

I have a hard time with the last part. If you want to ease the housing crisis, the best thing to do is probably offer $10,000 relocation credits for folks who might find the economic prospects in SF to be undesirable.

Trying to find a solution for someone earning $40K is like pushing on a string. That person may be better served, and actually prefer, by giving them a bit of a kick start in a new area.

[AngryScientist]

Trying to find a solution for someone earning $40K is like pushing on a string. That person may be better served, and actually prefer, by giving them a bit of a kick start in a new area.

yea, but when you think of any wealthy area, there are a ton of support functions that go along with that. there are bike mechanics, baristas, restaurant staff, car mechanics, and a host of other people who do not have the earning power of facebook tycoons, but still make a decent paycheck in the area, and they should be able to live in a reasonable proximity to their work, no?

[XXtwindad]

I have a hard time with the last part. If you want to ease the housing crisis, the best thing to do is probably offer $10,000 relocation credits for folks who might find the economic prospects in SF to be undesirable.

Trying to find a solution for someone earning $40K is like pushing on a string. That person may be better served, and actually prefer, by giving them a bit of a kick start in a new area.

Well Matt, I think there might be a bit of disconnect going on here. I mean no disrespect, because you're one of my favorite writers on this site. But New Hampshire isn't the Bay Area. The stuff happening here is unreal.

I know of two couples (both of whom are at least of moderate means) that are in failed relationships. They have both divorced (one couple was never married). And yet, they continue to live in the same house and live separate lives. Because that is by far the most affordable option. That is simply crazy.

The tech industry has certainly changed San Francisco, and many people would say not for the better. Economic, cultural, and racial diversity are important to the lifeblood of a city.

[xnetter]

A couple of posts commented on Vancouver house pricing being high and that is certainly true. This applies to condominiums and the like as well.

One aspect that has not been mentioned is the recent 'revelation' that Chinese interests has washed approximately $5 billion of illicit money in Vancouver real estate and in the local casinos. This sounds like a movie script.

The federal and provincial governments are quite embarrassed that the money laundering has gone on for so long and nobody flagged it for investigation. It is only now that our elected officials are being forced to investigate the matter.

The city is beautiful and many Asians call it home. The 'average' people either rent expensive apartments (sharing them with others quite often) or live in the suburbs where prices are not quite as high as in the city. Long commutes are the norm. I could not imagine commuting to and from the city. Chaos.

Actually, the previous government knew about it but turned a blind eye because the revenues to government from criminals laundering drug money in casinos were too juicy to clamp down on. Or so the allegations go. The current government is in the midst of investigating the situation and characterizing it as being like a movie script is spot on.

BC is the California of Canada so to some extent it is no surprise it is so expensive. You couldn't pay me to live in Vancouver though.

KJ

[jtakeda]

I have a hard time with the last part. If you want to ease the housing crisis, the best thing to do is probably offer $10,000 relocation credits for folks who might find the economic prospects in SF to be undesirable.


This is happening a lot and I’m not sure it’s working. But instead of a relocation credit it’s more like a wrongful eviction lawsuit.

The problem isn’t only the lack of availability of housing/the cost. It’s that landlords and developers aren’t goin through the proper channels to house new residents. They’re using loopholes, sleazy tactics and downright illegal avenues to get old residents out and new people in.

That’s really at the heart of the housing crisis. Sure it’s about supply/demand but the uproar is from the way the industry is kicking people out of their homes forcibly.

The bay has changed so much and as someone who doesn’t work in tech I’m counting my days here. The cost of living is absurd but what really gets me is the attitude of some of the folks moving in. I’ll post the photo later but I have a screenshot of a craigslist ad for a duplex in West Oakland for $8800. In the ad they use the fact that it was a black panther safehouse/meeting house to upsell it to a tech company to rent.

I’m just disgusted with what I’m seeing here (here being the Bay Area not paceline)

[peanutgallery]

It's all about location. Anybody can move to places that cost way too much and suffer as a result. You have to find the balance that works for you

As far as California goes? Stay there...don't move en mass and wreck someone else's paradise

[XXtwindad]

This is happening a lot and I’m not sure it’s working. But instead of a relocation credit it’s more like a wrongful eviction lawsuit.

The problem isn’t only the lack of availability of housing/the cost. It’s that landlords and developers aren’t goin through the proper channels to house new residents. They’re using loopholes, sleazy tactics and downright illegal avenues to get old residents out and new people in.

That’s really at the heart of the housing crisis. Sure it’s about supply/demand but the uproar is from the way the industry is kicking people out of their homes forcibly.

The bay has changed so much and as someone who doesn’t work in tech I’m counting my days here. The cost of living is absurd but what really gets me is the attitude of some of the folks moving in. I’ll post the photo later but I have a screenshot of a craigslist ad for a duplex in West Oakland for $8800. In the ad they use the fact that it was a black panther safehouse/meeting house to upsell it to a tech company to rent.

I’m just disgusted with what I’m seeing here

Incredible. No shame in the absolute irony.

[XXtwindad]

It's all about location. Anybody can move to places that cost way too much and suffer as a result. You have to find the balance that works for you

As far as California goes? Stay there...don't move en mass and wreck someone else's paradise

Aren't those two paragraphs contradictory? Just curious.

[kppolich]

It's all about location. Anybody can move to places that cost way too much and suffer as a result. You have to find the balance that works for you

As far as California goes? Stay there...don't move en mass and wreck someone else's paradise

Agree 100%

Life is 100% about the choices you make. Nobody is forcing you to move to CA, there are tech jobs elsewhere. Yes, I know they don't pay as much, but that is a personal choice you have to make. The Bay area is where the big companies with money are, and they can pay their employees. The real estate & rent react to those salaries and supply and demand. There are only so many jobs, and so many places to live, so the demand goes up while the supply has stayed the same. Will it turn into a concrete jungle, maybe. But, if you make more, so you can pay more correct?

I also get that the previous inhabitants of the bay area may be behind the curve. They probably don't have the same education as these new people showing up, and also not the same skills--therefore their pay is lower. That means they probably rent and down own their homes. If they did own their home, they could sell it and make some good money. Then relocate somewhere if they want and live like kings & queens. Nobody is forcing you to go, nobody is forcing you to stay. Prices go up, bubbles burst.

[Elefantino]

If they did own their home, they could sell it and make some good money. Then relocate somewhere if they want and live like kings & queens.

Exactly.

[FlashUNC]

Agree 100%

Life is 100% about the choices you make. Nobody is forcing you to move to CA, there are tech jobs elsewhere. Yes, I know they don't pay as much, but that is a personal choice you have to make. The Bay area is where the big companies with money are, and they can pay their employees. The real estate & rent react to those salaries and supply and demand. There are only so many jobs, and so many places to live, so the demand goes up while the supply has stayed the same. Will it turn into a concrete jungle, maybe. But, if you make more, so you can pay more correct?

I also get that the previous inhabitants of the bay area may be behind the curve. They probably don't have the same education as these new people showing up, and also not the same skills--therefore their pay is lower. That means they probably rent and down own their homes. If they did own their home, they could sell it and make some good money. Then relocate somewhere if they want and live like kings & queens. Nobody is forcing you to go, nobody is forcing you to stay. Prices go up, bubbles burst.

It's not that simple when communities have been together for nearly a century. And in some cases, yes, people are being forced to leave particularly if you don't own where you've been living, which is entirely possible after a century of redlining and other socio-economic issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/01/from-black-panthers-to-bbq-becky-the-displacement-of-black-oakland

[cfox]

I wish Connecticut was having this type of "crisis", much nicer than an actually housing crisis.

[pdonk]

Here is an interesting option for lower income housing that has recently occurred in my neighbourhood. The city, in partnership with a local not for profit has purchased a rooming house in order to preserve it.

http://www.pnlt.ca/

While this option only preserves a few of the at risk units in the area, it is an interesting option. I see that there is a similar organization in SF, that appears to have about 15 buildings under its management.

https://sfclt.org/

One other example of alternative thinking about affordable housing is a company called options for homes. It offers alternative financing options in order to get people in and typically only sells to end users not "inspeculators". https://www.optionsforhomes.ca/#about_us The feds up here are thinking of a similar approach through CMHC (similar to fannie mae or freddie mae - not sure whose who) in terms of equity mortgages and insurance.

In terms of making housing affordable, creativity is the key and thinking of ways to navigate the regulatory and financial systems in a different manner are the solutions.

I tend to think of housing in the following terms - is it fair to tell me I can't have or want what you have in terms of the location, type or cost of housing?

[Bostic]

My sister and I moved my mother to Reno in 2008 after the apartment complex she was living in in San Francisco was sold. We knew the old landlady for many years. She kept the rent very low for a decade until she herself retired and sold the property. It went downhill from there. New landlord was bound and determined to evict all the residents and jack the rent sky-high. A total jerk trying everything to come up with excuses why the place had to be vacated for renovation. After some hearings with the rent board I finally had enough and said it wasn't worth it. My mom's retirement deserved rest and relaxation and it wasn't going to come from living in San Francisco.

[dem]

If you are paid in stock (which almost all the megatech employees are) bay area house prices have actually declined relative to tech stocks:

https://a16z.com/2019/03/28/asset-theory-of-relativity-housing-example-everything-is-correlated-assets-vs-currency-tech-stock-index/

[kppolich]

It's not that simple when communities have been together for nearly a century. And in some cases, yes, people are being forced to leave particularly if you don't own where you've been living, which is entirely possible after a century of redlining and other socio-economic issues.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jun/01/from-black-panthers-to-bbq-becky-the-displacement-of-black-oakland

Socio-economic doesn't jive here. It's about competition.

Current residents that can't afford to stay don't have the skills necessary to compete with other potential job seekers, and thus lose out on more money that they would need to make in order to stay. That's competition. If they did have the skills they would beat out others for those jobs and have the $ to pay the rising cost of living that comes with the rush of everyone moving to a tech-tropolis.

Keeping out potential high earners looking to move to the Bay Area isn't fair to them either. You work your whole life to get a good job, make good money and want to move to the bay area and work for FB, GOOG, etc. They want to live as close to work as possible, and that it their right. They shouldn't be forced to live farther away and commute more because people have chosen to keep their basic skills/job in 2019 that hasn't seen wage growth/opportunity like technology.

I'm 100% for a fair shake, but i'm 150% for competition.

Let's say they do protect the housing cost, but everything else around them keeps going up in price. More expensive places to eat, shop, schools, etc. Those people who stay and have cheap rent won't be able to afford to keep up with the other stuff around them, so they are silo'd in a rich neighborhood, surrounded by things they can't afford. Where does it stop? Reduced food prices, schools, etc for those same folks who have reduced rent? That doesn't seem very fair to the others around there either.

[pobrien]

Actually, the previous government knew about it but turned a blind eye because the revenues to government from criminals laundering drug money in casinos were too juicy to clamp down on. Or so the allegations go. The current government is in the midst of investigating the situation and characterizing it as being like a movie script is spot on.

BC is the California of Canada so to some extent it is no surprise it is so expensive. You couldn't pay me to live in Vancouver though.

KJ

Hi Xnetter,

You are right. One thing I am a little perplexed about is that none of our US associates have commented on the wild wild west of money laundering in BC.
This could be the script for a decent movie and it is a true story.

If this was discovered in the US, I expect they would be apoplectic. If it were, I expect their administration would be on it pdq.

I went to UBC for eight years so got to like the city and wanted to return when I retired. I was fortunate the stars lined up as it is expensive. I own a place in the West End quite close to English Bay. Not many other parts of the city I would consider living in. Traffic is chaotic, no question. You got us beat there!

Patrick

[MattTuck]

yea, but when you think of any wealthy area, there are a ton of support functions that go along with that. there are bike mechanics, baristas, restaurant staff, car mechanics, and a host of other people who do not have the earning power of facebook tycoons, but still make a decent paycheck in the area, and they should be able to live in a reasonable proximity to their work, no?

There is that word "should" again :) It might be a noble goal, but I'm not sure how you accomplish it practically and fairly. Look at the issues that NYC faces with rent control apartments in an attempt to solve this same problem. It reminds me of a comic I once read.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/major_in_the_universe.png



Well Matt, I think there might be a bit of disconnect going on here. I mean no disrespect, because you're one of my favorite writers on this site. But New Hampshire isn't the Bay Area. The stuff happening here is unreal.

I know of two couples (both of whom are at least of moderate means) that are in failed relationships. They have both divorced (one couple was never married). And yet, they continue to live in the same house and live separate lives. Because that is by far the most affordable option. That is simply crazy.

The tech industry has certainly changed San Francisco, and many people would say not for the better. Economic, cultural, and racial diversity are important to the lifeblood of a city.

Yeah, that is crazy. I am not saying that is a situation that isn't problematic. I'm just saying that the solution might not be "go back to the way things were." The changes you observe may be irreversible, and if they are, perhaps the best solution for those being displaced the most is an honest shot at starting over somewhere else.

I drive 30 minutes each way to work (compared to 10 minutes when we were renting). When we had the twins last year, we bought a house after looking at 70 potential houses. We were priced out of the area immediately near where I work, but we could have gotten a house 15 minutes away, but those houses were generally old, smaller and not in the best condition. We went another 15 minutes out, and got a house that was bigger and newer. That is a trade off that we made based on what we valued for our family. Would I like to be closer to work? You bet! But I don't view it as failure that needs to be corrected.

[FlashUNC]

Socio-economic doesn't jive here. It's about competition.

Current residents that can't afford to stay don't have the skills necessary to compete with other potential job seekers, and thus lose out on more money that they would need to make in order to stay. That's competition. If they did have the skills they would beat out others for those jobs and have the $ to pay the rising cost of living that comes with the rush of everyone moving to a tech-tropolis.

Keeping out potential high earners looking to move to the Bay Area isn't fair to them either. You work your whole life to get a good job, make good money and want to move to the bay area and work for FB, GOOG, etc. They want to live as close to work as possible, and that it their right. They shouldn't be forced to live farther away and commute more because people have chosen to keep their basic skills/job in 2019 that hasn't seen wage growth/opportunity like technology.

I'm 100% for a fair shake, but i'm 150% for competition.

Let's say they do protect the housing cost, but everything else around them keeps going up in price. More expensive places to eat, shop, schools, etc. Those people who stay and have cheap rent won't be able to afford to keep up with the other stuff around them, so they are silo'd in a rich neighborhood, surrounded by things they can't afford. Where does it stop? Reduced food prices, schools, etc for those same folks who have reduced rent? That doesn't seem very fair to the others around there either.

So if the folks living in West Oakland who worked in the public schools or down at the port didn't go to school to get Computer Science degrees from Stanford, well tough on them, that's their fault? Is it their fault their grandparents were redlined out of mortgages that would have allowed them to buy their homes 60-70 years ago, creating the beginnings of a intergenerational wealth transfer that might have insulated the community from what it's seeing today? Let's not pretend there's no socio-economic impact here.

You're also ignoring the very real consequences of exiling large portions of a community -- not even the poor, but middle class workers like firefighters, police, teachers and others -- outside the communities where they work.

Those jobs that "haven't seen wage growth like technology" are also the ones that keep the roads paved, meals cooked and buses driven. It's that "competition" mindset that's led to a further bifurcation of the whole area into haves and have nots.

I'm not advocating for freezing these communities in amber and advocating for no change ever happening. But there has to be more consideration for a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the growing region that serves everyone, not just blithely handwave at "well, that's competition" and push out the very folks who made these places attractive to live in to begin with.

[jtakeda]

Socio-economic doesn't jive here. It's about competition.

Current residents that can't afford to stay don't have the skills necessary to compete with other potential job seekers, and thus lose out on more money that they would need to make in order to stay. That's competition. If they did have the skills they would beat out others for those jobs and have the $ to pay the rising cost of living that comes with the rush of everyone moving to a tech-tropolis.

Keeping out potential high earners looking to move to the Bay Area isn't fair to them either. You work your whole life to get a good job, make good money and want to move to the bay area and work for FB, GOOG, etc. They want to live as close to work as possible, and that it their right. They shouldn't be forced to live farther away and commute more because people have chosen to keep their basic skills/job in 2019 that hasn't seen wage growth/opportunity like technology.

I'm 100% for a fair shake, but i'm 150% for competition.

Let's say they do protect the housing cost, but everything else around them keeps going up in price. More expensive places to eat, shop, schools, etc. Those people who stay and have cheap rent won't be able to afford to keep up with the other stuff around them, so they are silo'd in a rich neighborhood, surrounded by things they can't afford. Where does it stop? Reduced food prices, schools, etc for those same folks who have reduced rent? That doesn't seem very fair to the others around there either.

I’m curious to hear more from you.

So hypothetically—let’s say a certain group of people were given unequal access to ownership of property so they rented. The neighborhood they rented in was neglected and the landlords didn’t fix the rental properties and the city neglected the roads and the neighborhood eventually got run down.

All of the sudden a huge influx of wealth enters and the landlords realized if they kicked out their renters and sold the property to a newly minted rich person they could make buckets of cash.

Would you consider that fair? Would you consider the competition of that market fair?

It’s very clear what my stance is and I’ve come to terms with the inequality. I think people need to realize the privilege they get before assuming they’re playing on a level playing field though.

[kppolich]

Responses to each in red.

So if the folks living in West Oakland who worked in the public schools or down at the port didn't go to school to get Computer Science degrees from Stanford, well tough on them, that's their fault? Is it their fault their grandparents were redlined out of mortgages that would have allowed them to buy their homes 60-70 years ago, creating the beginnings of a intergenerational wealth transfer that might have insulated the community from what it's seeing today? Let's not pretend there's no socio-economic impact here.

West Oakland isn't what it used to be, like it or not. If you don't let the rich people come in and pay more taxes you'll never see wages rise for state employees (teachers, roads, etc). It is unfortunate though that CA taxes are already absurdly high compared to the rest of the country, and anyone bold enough to ask for more tax money will probably get laughed out of the room.

Intergenerational wealth transfer has to start somewhere. These folks who can't afford to stay in New Oakland can move somewhere for a while if they see the writing on the wall and start building their wealth and pass that onto their kids. Simple as that.


You're also ignoring the very real consequences of exiling large portions of a community -- not even the poor, but middle class workers like firefighters, police, teachers and others -- outside the communities where they work.

See above and add - those folks can also work for non-state funded organizations, if they choose. Their pay will rise, but not until more money is coming in or someone makes a better wage increase argument to the local government.

Those jobs that "haven't seen wage growth like technology" are also the ones that keep the roads paved, meals cooked and buses driven. It's that "competition" mindset that's led to a further bifurcation of the whole area into haves and have nots.

They haven't seen wage growth compared to technology because most of them are still doing the same damn thing they were 20 years ago. Cooks cook food. Firefighters put out fires. Teachers teach. And the best of the best of each of those get promotoed and make more money.


I'm not advocating for freezing these communities in amber and advocating for no change ever happening. But there has to be more consideration for a holistic approach to meeting the needs of the growing region that serves everyone, not just blithely handwave at "well, that's competition" and push out the very folks who made these places attractive to live in to begin with.

[kppolich]

Red responses to each below as well.

I’m curious to hear more from you.

Hi

So hypothetically—let’s say a certain group of people were given unequal access to ownership of property so they rented. The neighborhood they rented in was neglected and the landlords didn’t fix the rental properties and the city neglected the roads and the neighborhood eventually got run down.

If my neighborhood was neglected and I didn't have to stay, I would leave regardless of the situation.

All of the sudden a huge influx of wealth enters and the landlords realized if they kicked out their renters and sold the property to a newly minted rich person they could make buckets of cash.

I would make a choice if I was still living there. 1.) Do i think the new money coming to town will make my community better? If yes, I'd look to stay or buy knowing things would get better. That is an investment and should be treated with the same risk as any investment. 2.) If I think I won't be able to provide for my family and keep up with the new neighbors- hello any other location that allows me to do so.

Would you consider that fair? Would you consider the competition of that market fair?

Yes, this isn't a new problem. Those who saw it coming either left or stayed and made a financial move to build some wealth and are still there. Those who have stayed because they had a low rent are now in a tough spot. Fair, kind of. Life? Yes.

It’s very clear what my stance is and I’ve come to terms with the inequality. I think people need to realize the privilege they get before assuming they’re playing on a level playing field though.

[GonaSovereign]

Here is an interesting option for lower income housing that has recently occurred in my neighbourhood. The city, in partnership with a local not for profit has purchased a rooming house in order to preserve it.

http://www.pnlt.ca/



Minor thread drift. We're almost neighbours. I'm in Swansea. If you ride the Ellis loops, you go past my place.

And, I'm hoping for the best with Parkdale. Such a great hood, always in massive transition.

[mtechnica]

So what happens when you have a place like SF and people making under 45k a year are truly priced out of affording housing because of the free market, so they move, but also don’t choose to commute to work there since they can make the same amount of money somewhere else but also afford to live there? Who will staff the coffee shops? Who will work at the gas station? Who will work at the grocery store? You can’t entirely support a community with high paid tech workers can you? If you’re making 70k a year and paying $2k a month for housing that’s pretty much half of your take home income right there, now imagine making 35k and finding a place to rent AND paying your bills!

[FlashUNC]

Responses to each in red.

What ever would we do without the rich people? They've made everything better throughout the history of human civilization.

The rest is just callous hand-waving. Next time just post some choice quotes from any Rand novel. It'll at least make for more interesting reading.

[mtechnica]

What ever would we do without the rich people? They've made everything better throughout the history of human civilization.

The rest is just callous hand-waving. Next time just post some choice quotes from any Rand novel. It'll at least make for more interesting reading.

Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make more money bro!

[William]

So what happens when you have a place like SF and people making under 45k a year are truly priced out of affording housing because of the free market, so they move, but also don’t choose to commute to work there since they can make the same amount of money somewhere else but also afford to live there? Who will staff the coffee shops? Who will work at the gas station? Who will work at the grocery store? You can’t entirely support a community with high paid tech workers can you? If you’re making 70k a year and paying $2k a month for housing that’s pretty much half of your take home income right there, now imagine making 35k and finding a place to rent AND paying your bills!

Well, one thing you end up with is a certain percentage of working poor who are homeless. You see a bit of that in places like SF and Seattle.





W.

[kppolich]

Just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and make more money bro!

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

It is your choice, as a human to stay or go in any situation.

[mtechnica]

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

You have a point but it doesn’t change the fact that a society / economy requires a large amount of people working in lower skilled jobs and they have to live somewhere, as per my above post what do you think happens when there’s nobody that can afford to do basic jobs?

[spacemen3]

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

It is your choice, as a human to stay or go in any situation.

Or just bus in your cheap labor. That is called Apartheid. :)

[kppolich]

You have a point but it doesn’t change the fact that a society / economy requires a large amount of people working in lower skilled jobs and they have to live somewhere, as per my above post what do you think happens when there’s nobody that can afford to do basic jobs?

Then those basic jobs go away, are replaced by machines, or are replaced by someone who is willing to work for less. Sound familiar?

[mtechnica]

Then those basic jobs go away, are replaced by machines, or are replaced by someone who is willing to work for less. Sound familiar?

But not every job is disposable, able to be automated, or has people lined up to work for nothing.

[Davist]

Well, one thing you end up with is a certain percentage of working poor who are homeless. You see a bit of that in places like SF and Seattle.


A bit? Understatement of the year.. I'm sure we've all seen the public poop map/app, etc. SF has really gone downhill (go there 6-7x/year for business, tech adjacent). Just in Seattle last week, I'd think there's SOME working homeless poor, but seems much better than SF, though I don't go to Seattle as often, so I may be out to lunch.

I lived in the Bay Area from '94-'04 (Fremont). We left due to job opportunity in PA and have found quality of life much better here.

I work with many of the name brand internet giants, and even their folks are leaving, when given options. Some senior people I work with at Google (global responsibilities) live in NoVA and ATL areas and are much happier for it. (yes, per previous MtView is "stuck in amber").

[PeregrineA1]

We could look to Singapore for what could be accomplished. But i dont imagine anything remotely comparable to be accomplished.



California, for all intents and purposes, might as well be Monaco...



I had a customer, standing on his 10,000 SF custom lot in coastal Orange County, compare the lot to his home in Monaco. He said it is much the same only the plumbing works in California.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kppolich]

But not every job is disposable, able to be automated, or has people lined up to work for nothing.

Wanna bet?

Right now, no. But in the future you can't predict that with all the AI, automation, service-sharing.

50 years ago - do you think the factory workers said the same thing?

[jtakeda]

What ever would we do without the rich people? They've made everything better throughout the history of human civilization.

The rest is just callous hand-waving. Next time just post some choice quotes from any Rand novel. It'll at least make for more interesting reading.

Better luck next generation sucka!

[mtechnica]

Wanna bet?

Right now, no. But in the future you can't predict that with all the AI, automation, service-sharing.

50 years ago - do you think the factory workers said the same thing?

That won’t fix the problem though because in the future there will be even more people competing for even less jobs, so the buck has to stop somewhere as far as affordable housing. It won’t be in these high income areas, probably, but people also don’t seem to consider that AI and automation will also replace what are now considered high paying jobs since replacing a high earner gives a better ROI. FWIW I work in automation and robotics so I’m on the front lines as it were, when it comes to replacing people with robots - it’s literally what I do, and I think we are a longer way off than everyone thinks as far as replacing service type jobs with automation. Plus on top of that, in the coming decades with climate change wreaking havoc on the global economy, it might end up being more economical to just employ people for a lot of things that you might think will end up being automated. Automation is great for repetitive tasks but for a teacher, or firefighter, or even a chef, we aren’t going to be there within the foreseeable future short of a breakthrough in AI and energy storage, which is looking less and less likely given said global instability and general lack of investment outside of specific areas. I honestly think income inequality is the root of the problem here and creating an automated utopia for the ultra rich isn’t a solution that’s worth aiming for in the long run, but that’s just me.

[jimcav]

Or, choose to live somewhere with a lower cost of living and make the same amount of money. Your choice. But don't just sit there and blame others, that is called whining.

It is your choice, as a human to stay or go in any situation.

I've been lucky to be employed all my adult life, but have seen many, especially during my military service, who had illness or injury that prevented full time work (or they got fired because the illness or injury forced them to take too many days off), yet they didn't have a severe enough illness/injury to draw a living off VA disability, or to even come close to qualify for state disability. They are stuck, and can't afford to move anywhere--not that there were better prospects elsewhere. I'm sure there are many where you can substitute education or skill-set issues for the illness/injury issues. They can't magically gain the education, or skills, nor do they have savings to move to some presumed part of the country that might have jobs for them.

[notsew]

The bottom line for housing (and homelessness) is supply and demand. The zoning and planning requirements of the west coast, which are very much the rules which made these places so desirable, have been weaponized by nimby's into the new economic red-lining. Its hard not to hear the echos of segregation in the cries to 'protect neighborhood character.'

Single-family zoning is simply not acceptable in high-demand high density regions and local governments are hamstrung in any attempt to change because (1) home-owners vote and renters don't and (2) most people can't even name their mayor/city council members - you know, the ones who would make these decisions. So, those with the most to lose control the conversation (i.e., home-owners). I'd say at this point, the state HAS to wade into this and force local governments to change. They are certainly not going to do it on their own and the ramifications for not doing it is the further stratification of society in these areas (cool, you get to ride a bus for two hours to make $12 an hour) which is, I think, unacceptable.

[AngryScientist]

I want to believe kppolich is embellishing a bit, but to imply the problem is as simple as:

"if you cant afford to live where you do, just move someplace more affordable"

that is obviously an oversimplification of another very complicated problem. just like healthcare, homelessness, violence, crime, suicide, etc - if these were simple problems with one-liner solutions, they wouldnt plague societies the way they do.

it's a good discussion though, and always interesting to hear different perspectives.

[NHAero]

We've been reckoning with affordable housing on Martha's Vineyard for almost 20 years. Some different drivers - the second home market vs. tech jobs - but some similar (income inequality - billionaires now buy the low cost houses to house their staff for the three weeks they come here, and they sit empty the rest of the year.) What hasn't been said as clearly as it should be in this thread is that there is huge value in an intact community fabric made up of people of diverse backgrounds and wealth who are connected to a place. That fabric is there when tragedy strikes a family or a farm or whatever, and the real support comes not from the gov't or insurance companies, but from people who know each other and are connected through community. We've seen friends move off the Island, not from losing a job, but from losing their rental - one a medical social worker, one a yoga teacher, one a librarian. The community incurs a loss when those people leave.

My town was the first to adopt an ordinance that allows a second unit on a single family house property if the tenants meet the housing authority's income guidelines, or if the unit is occupied by a relative. Our recently-retired police chief and his wife built an 800 sf unit on their property, and they moved into it and their son and his family moved into the main house.

Our local housing trust bought an old B&B and has converted it to 16 SROs each with private bath, and a shared kitchen/living area, and it's rented to the hospital for their workers, many of them are low wage. Another similar project is in the works. So there are lots of ways and we need to get creative to keep diversity and local knowledge in our communities.

[54ny77]

This, very much so.

Example: friends of mine live in a small, unique isolated little town in SWFL. Some houses more swank than others, but regardless, it's a community. One neighbor might be retired cop and his wife (who herself might have been a teacher or nurse), another neighbor might be a guy with 9 digits net worth. For the latter resident, you'd never know it. Everyone's in shorts and flip flops. At the end of the day, a cold bottle of Bud Light is enjoyed by all on someone's balcony/party patio. And everyone looks out for each other.

I hope to live in a place like that someday.

As for the question at hand, housing has gotten way out of hand in so many places. I don't know how college kids starting out today can swing it. The magnitude of housing affordability (or rather, the lack thereof) relative to wages in an MSA is really quite something. And the bay area is such a bizarre microeconomic case study, with demand so far outstripping supply it's bonkers. Where does the guy or gal who drives for Uber Eats, who brings a cup of coffee to recent college grads making $150k/yr., go live?

What hasn't been said as clearly as it should be in this thread is that there is huge value in an intact community fabric made up of people of diverse backgrounds and wealth who are connected to a place. That fabric is there when tragedy strikes a family or a farm or whatever, and the real support comes not from the gov't or insurance companies, but from people who know each other and are connected through community. We've seen friends move off the Island, not from losing a job, but from losing their rental - one a medical social worker, one a yoga teacher, one a librarian. The community incurs a loss when those people leave.

[xnetter]

This, very much so.

Where does the guy or gal who drives for Uber Eats, who brings a cup of coffee to recent college grads making $150k/yr., go live?

I think in most cases, lower-income people just relocate further out, where typically the cheaper newer tract housing is and is being built. That's how it was in Toronto, where they keep paving over farm land to put up horrifying, soul-crushing tract housing. Commutes get longer and longer for people who have to move further and further away from their work location. You wind up with large amounts of people spending 2, 3, sometime 4 hrs a day in their cars or on commuter transit, which is sad and runs counter to improving productivity and quality of life.

Not sure if the same outward growth is possible in a place like SF or Seattle where there is finite housing stock penned in by ocean, mountains and whatnot. I guess would either embrace increasingly marginal living or leave the region entirely.

KJ

[bigbill]

We'll see a continuation of companies moving away from the densely populated and pricey areas. Just about any manufacturing company can't find or keep decent employees in areas of inflated housing costs. My current employer put the plant here in NW Arizona because of the low costs and easy access to I-40. It's still a struggle to find and keep good employees. I'm hiring a new Maintenance Manager and I've got 150 resumes/applications because it pays around $75K a year, that's fortune around here.

[pdonk]

One big thing to consider when saying "move to affordable places to live" is that while the cost of a dwelling to purchase may be less, other expenses are typically more.

Having lived in northern New Brunswick in a $15,000 house, the house was cheap, but fresh fruit, gas and car insurance were expensive, healthcare was just above third world standards as that is where most of the Drs came from and unemployment was high. My salary was comparatively OK, but nothing great and my quality of life was poor.

In terms of the "soul crushing tract housing" - not everyone wants to live in a condo, and if they want to live in ground related housing the market dictates price. One big thing people neglect to think about in the "drive until you qualify" mentality of housing is total expenditures related to housing choice - including fuel for driving, wear and tear on a car and replacing cars more frequently.

And yes, this entire thread started on the idea that a proposal to allow higher density housing is interesting and should be discussed. So you either allow and make it easier to build multi storey residential in urban and near urban locations or you have an ever increasing urban footprint. There needs to be a happy medium.

[Ozz]

We'll see a continuation of companies moving away from the densely populated and pricey areas. Just about any manufacturing company can't find or keep decent employees in areas of inflated housing costs. My current employer put the plant here in NW Arizona because of the low costs and easy access to I-40. It's still a struggle to find and keep good employees. I'm hiring a new Maintenance Manager and I've got 150 resumes/applications because it pays around $75K a year, that's fortune around here.
+1

I think this is key...companies need to located away from the "big name" cities and focus on providing a lifestyle for the employees...

Here is a company I've watched for 10+ yrs doing it right: Insitu (https://www.insitu.com/about/careershttp://)

"...we create more than just products with wings. We are an integrated information and technology company offering a lifestyle that blends the pace and challenges of a growing global company with a love of exploring the best of what the Columbia River Gorge has to offer while also providing opportunities to work at one of our other exciting locations in California, Mississippi or Australia..."

Big cities can be exciting and all that...but man, to have a good paying job in a low-cost-of-living location, while still just a couple hours from a big city. Sounds great to me.....key is to have the skills.

Regarding service jobs in big city....for Starbucks to attract employees, they may end up needing to pay $20-$30 an hour...that currently $5 cup of coffee, will eventually be $15 in those locations. The DoorDash delivery fee...maybe ends up being $50??

[weisan]

Austin ranks very high on the list of cities that ex Bay Area people moved to. So, there's part of your answer ...

We could look to Singapore for what could be accomplished. But i dont imagine anything remotely comparable to be accomplished.




It's easy to point to Singapore and say, "Look, let's copy their "success."

But like you said, it's not that simple.

Whatever "success" one might conclude from looking at Singapore, it came at a price, compromise and sacrifices were made, with the recognition that there's no magic bullet or easy fix, it takes time, learning from mistakes, try again, enacting unpopular policies, making hard choices, taking a long-term view on things, people in government actually given the ability to govern instead of playing politics...etc etc.

Now, you tell me, honestly ..what are the chances that any or all of the above "conditions" can be met or carried into motion in this country, realistically speaking? (don't need to answer that, just keep it to yourself)

I wish things were different.

Sometimes, things have to get really bad before they get better.

Sad, but true.

[Elefantino]

Where does the guy or gal who drives for Uber Eats, who brings a cup of coffee to recent college grads making $150k/yr., go live?
Manteca. Or Stockton.

Or they rent a room in a house near Fruitvale.

[HugoBear]

Or Antioch, Brentwood, Tracy, etc. Has been going on for decades.
I remember an article about 10-15 years ago in the Sac Bee where a person said they were living the “American Dream” by commuting from Roseville/Rocklin to the city. It plotted their day and commute and it was like at least 4 hours each way.

[brownhound]

Just for comparison...Saint Louis.

It's actually difficult to find a house for more than $1 million. And if you do, it's going to look like one - circular drive, dozens of rooms, pool - or be a rather large house in a very desirable suburban school district. You have to work to find a commute more than 40 minutes.

My fully-renovated 100 year old house = $250k in a racially-diverse, walkable neighborhood next to urban amenities. My property tax is $3500/year.

[paredown]

I want to believe kppolich is embellishing a bit, but to imply the problem is as simple as:

"if you cant afford to live where you do, just move someplace more affordable"

that is obviously an oversimplification of another very complicated problem. just like healthcare, homelessness, violence, crime, suicide, etc - if these were simple problems with one-liner solutions, they wouldnt plague societies the way they do. Yes there are McJobs--but if they don't pay enough so you can actually live there, or you need welfare top-ups to survive, how does that work?

it's a good discussion though, and always interesting to hear different perspectives.
Yes--but it also begs the question of where to move?

There was a recent article about this--the old pattern, when rural communities could no longer provide opportunity was for people to move to the cities where there were jobs. Given the de-industrialization that has taken place in the last 40 or so years--it is not clear that there are better places for working people to move to.

Where do you move in the US for opportunity? We can all admit that "flyover country" in general is cheaper to live in--but what do you do when you get there?

One of the most frightening articles I have read recently was about a small town south of Chicago that was going to be a boom town for its residents because the big warehouses--including Amazon--were coming. So far it has been an economic and environmental disaster--and the jobs have not materialized:
<looking for link>

[brownhound]

Where do you move in the US for opportunity? We can all admit that "flyover country" in general is cheaper to live in--but what do you do when you get there?

There's been hand-wringing in this thread about your public servants/service providers: police officers, teachers, waiters. Those exist in fly-over country.

Sure, salaries are lower too. (I took about a $50k pay cut leaving the NYC area and sacrificed higher ceiling.) But the those jobs generally pay enough to buy a housing.

Fly-over country is likely to have a more recent historical memory of manufacturing which provided good pay with little education. That's disappeared in the Midwest, same as California, exceptions notwithstanding.

[ibis]

yea, but when you think of any wealthy area, there are a ton of support functions that go along with that. there are bike mechanics, baristas, restaurant staff, car mechanics, and a host of other people who do not have the earning power of facebook tycoons, but still make a decent paycheck in the area, and they should be able to live in a reasonable proximity to their work, no?

There is that word "should" again :) It might be a noble goal, but I'm not sure how you accomplish it practically and fairly. Look at the issues that NYC faces with rent control apartments in an attempt to solve this same problem.

I guess we were lucky to get into SF before the upswing really threw things out of whack. I've always worked in the outdoor industry and my wife works in special education, yet we make it work.

[joosttx]

I prefer this side...


https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/40834938103_b2cfa9fe26_h.jpg

[HugoBear]

Love Marin and your pictures are great.

[54ny77]

Crazy thing is, outta college I rented a room in an apartment in Russian Hill, in a prime spot, for a few hundred a month. I couldn't fathom what that cost is today!

This was pre-internet by the way. Sourced via this crazy thing called a newspaper. I actually had to meet the other roommates to "interview" with them so as to make sure I (and they) were not psycho....

Seems like a downright quaint idea in this day and age.


Manteca. Or Stockton.

Or they rent a room in a house near Fruitvale.

[joosttx]

Crazy thing is, outta college I rented a room in an apartment in Russian Hill, in a prime spot, for a few hundred a month. I couldn't fathom what that cost is today!

Our realtor, who was a who's who of SF real estate, showed us a 3 story home with a clear view of the Bay he redid on Russian Hill. He rented it for $50K a week during the America's Cup. That was like 2012.

[Elefantino]

Crazy thing is, outta college I rented a room in an apartment in Russian Hill, in a prime spot, for a few hundred a month. I couldn't fathom what that cost is today!

This was pre-internet by the way. Sourced via this crazy thing called a newspaper. I actually had to meet the other roommates to "interview" with them so as to make sure I (and they) were not psycho....

Seems like a downright quaint idea in this day and age.
When my son was in school in SF he rented a small four-bedroom apt on Haight for $3200. He lived there for eight years. Then the landlord "discovered" that he was the only original renter remaining, invoked a "no sublet" clause and gave him 30 days. They painted the place and re-listed it for $10k.

My son moved to Brooklyn, where it's a lot cheaper.

[XXtwindad]

When my son was in school in SF he rented a small four-bedroom apt on Haight for $3200. He lived there for eight years. Then the landlord "discovered" that he was the only original renter remaining, invoked a "no sublet" clause and gave him 30 days. They painted the place and re-listed it for $10k.

My son moved to Brooklyn, where it's a lot cheaper.

SF rental ordinances allow for the replacement of all original tenants on the lease as long one master tenant is remaining. They new tenants should've been served with a 6.14 notice (sub tenancy) and the rent raised when your son left.

[Duende]

I know of two couples (both of whom are at least of moderate means) that are in failed relationships. They have both divorced (one couple was never married). And yet, they continue to live in the same house and live separate lives. Because that is by far the most affordable option. That is simply crazy.

The tech industry has certainly changed San Francisco, and many people would say not for the better. Economic, cultural, and racial diversity are important to the lifeblood of a city.

This pretty much describes my current situation. My girlfriend and I are separating. After 30 years here, Her income isn’t enough now to live in SF. Struggling to figure out how she can stay and not be uprooted from her life.

The culture of the city has really changed. Established Mom and Pop stores are gone for boutique “pop ups” that only last a year at most before going under and being replaced.

Tech Bro kids dominate the market place. And for them playing video games, ordering out for both food and “entertainment” is the norm.

The new wealth here doesn’t support the arts or cultural institutions like the Haas family and others did for so long.

Lucca’s Deli in Valencia and 22nd just closed shop.

At 9pm the city is a ghost town, with most restaurants closed and everyone locked up in their homes.

There’s still some good things left... but they’re getting few and far between.

[XXtwindad]

This pretty much describes my current situation. My girlfriend and I are separating. After 30 years here, Her income isn’t enough now to live in SF. Struggling to figure out how she can stay and not be uprooted from her life.

The culture of the city has really changed. Established Mom and Pop stores are gone for boutique “pop ups” that only last a year at most before going under and being replaced.

Tech Bro kids dominate the market place. And for them playing video games, ordering out for both food and “entertainment” is the norm.

The new wealth here doesn’t support the arts or cultural institutions like the Haas family and others did for so long.

Lucca’s Deli in Valencia and 22nd just closed shop.

At 9pm the city is a ghost town, with most restaurants closed and everyone locked up in their homes.

There’s still some good things left... but they’re getting few and far between.

Everything you just said. It's an absolute crisis. The romantic and mythologized "San Francisco" is gone.

[Elefantino]

Alexandra Pelosi made an HBO documentary, "San Francisco 2.0," in 2015. It warned of the changes that were happening and continue to accelerate. I shudder to think what San Francisco 3.0 will look like. More people leaving, more prices spiking, less affordability.

It was not a snap decision for us to leave the Bay Area for good, but with prices sky high we felt like it was a good time to sell. Plus, we wanted to be out of the area when the next big one hits.

[jtakeda]

SF rental ordinances allow for the replacement of all original tenants on the lease as long one master tenant is remaining. They new tenants should've been served with a 6.14 notice (sub tenancy) and the rent raised when your son left.

Let’s not get off topic but this is incorrect. It’s a gray area where the landlord can claim ignorance if they never acknowledge the sub tenant existed in the first place.

The 6.14 notice is one way to be served but you can be evicted or have your rent terminated without one.

If the original lease stated that no sub-tenants were allowed all they would do is serve the master tenant and a doe serve “any and all unnamed occupants” with the summons, petition, cccs and pre judgement claim. It’s become cutthroat and it’s created an environment where tenants are afraid to bring up issues to their landlord in fear of raising flags.

I doubt this would come up here at paceline but if someone in SF has landlord-tenant dispute you can feel free to PM me and I’ll help as best as I can.

[XXtwindad]

I was a property manager (CCRM) in SF for ten years. It is correct.

[jtakeda]

I was a property manager (CCRM) in SF for ten years. It is correct.

This exact topic is what i do for work everyday. How long ago were you a property manager? Landlords have become very savvy.

Fortunately I work on the other side—but trust me 6.14 is a thing of the past. Go ahead and go to 501 and ask the judge. It’s not Quidachay anymore

[Bostic]

The San Francisco I loved growing up in the Outer Richmond is long gone. I get my fix of the city in when I visit in-laws that are fortunate to have purchased a home some time ago and when I do my long bike rides up there from San Jose. Even then I really only want to see the coast line, Mt. Davidson or Grand View Park.

In some ways I miss the 'better times' but I don't see myself ever wanting to move back. The political climate is simply awful. I have to empty the car ever time my wife and I drive up there if I'm going to park somewhere so a break in would not result in anything worthwhile lost.

My career started back in the early 90's. I never went to college, turned down a full music scholarship at Berklee to work and support my mother. I realized trying to make a living out of being a heavy metal drummer was not going to get me too far so I got my foot in the door at a company doing every low-level functionary job there was. Answer phones, change toner, photo-copy manuals the sizes of unabridged dictionaries, etc. After doing that for a few months I figured I should probably learn how to type and then how to work a computer. I bought Dos and Windows 3.1 for Dummies and taught myself. From that I built up my career in IT. Those early years I was working two jobs living on minimal sleep but I had no choice, I had to help my mother.

Since I didn't go to college I also didn't have the student loan dept to pay back. I know that has also rejected me automatically from some positions I've applied for where resume readers see the x on college and overlook me.

If someone really wants to learn, they can if they want it. Youtube has replaced for free what cost me money in the past buying books to self-learn. What you can't find there you can most likely find on reddit or any number of other technology sites (serverfault, stackoverflow).

[XXtwindad]

I’m a registered process server I do this everyday. How long ago were you a property manager? Landlords have become very savvy.

Fortunately I work on the other side—but trust me 6.14 is a thing of the past. Go ahead and go to 501 and ask the judge. It’s not Quidachay anymore

From 1995 to 2006. The laws are the laws.

https://www.sfaa.org/Public/Magazine/05_2019/Legal_Q___A_May_2019.aspx

"Rent may be adjusted under Costa-Hawkins when the last original occupant no longer permanently resides in the dwelling." This is the salient quote from the article.

As long as Mike's son remained in the unit, the rent had to remain the same with annual allowable increases.

[cnighbor1]

Housing crisis
Has an architect I have thought what got us into this Housing crisis.
My take a house sits on a piece of property. and that is the problem
If one takes and average size lot 60' wide by 120' and multiplies by the number of houses needed for a small city ( say 250,000 total population) one great a very large area required to build all those homes on. To provide services to that very large area one needs roads, sewers, water, electricity etc. . And has your providing those service for only one household per lot it isn't cost effective over a long time. The roads deteriorate, services need major repairs etc. All costing money that isn't sustainable over time . The model just doesn't work. the single family homes concept was wrong from the start.
Yes it is the American dream but not all dreams are not practical.

[XXtwindad]

Let’s not get off topic but this is incorrect. It’s a gray area where the landlord can claim ignorance if they never acknowledge the sub tenant existed in the first place.

The 6.14 notice is one way to be served but you can be evicted or have your rent terminated without one.

If the original lease stated that no sub-tenants were allowed all they would do is serve the master tenant and a doe serve “any and all unnamed occupants” with the summons, petition, cccs and pre judgement claim. It’s become cutthroat and it’s created an environment where tenants are afraid to bring up issues to their landlord in fear of raising flags.

I doubt this would come up here at paceline but if someone in SF has landlord-tenant dispute you can feel free to PM me and I’ll help as best as I can.

The definition of 6.14:

6.14 NOTICE

A landlord can serve a notice (called a 6.14 Notice, based on Section 6.14 of the Rent Board Rules and Regulations, see link here) on a subtenant saying that he recognizes that person merely as an “occupant,” and that when the master- and co-tenants leave, the apartment will be treated as vacant and the rent can go up to market value. Every year after that market rent increase, the landlord can only raise the rent by the allowable amount.

[jtakeda]

From 1995 to 2006. The laws are the laws.

https://www.sfaa.org/Public/Magazine/05_2019/Legal_Q___A_May_2019.aspx

"Rent may be adjusted under Costa-Hawkins when the last original occupant no longer permanently resides in the dwelling." This is the salient quote from the article.

As long as Mike's son remained in the unit, the rent had to remain the same with annual allowable increases.

One of us has misunderstood elefantinos post.

I understood it as his son lived there for 8 years. His landlord “discovered” he was subleasing—which is against the lease and evicted him for violating the lease.

Once he was evicted and no longer a master tenant the rent was raised on the new tenants.

What you’re describing twin is 100% illegal but that’s not the scenario that was described. The landlord can not use sub leasing as a basis for increasing the rent over the API

[XXtwindad]

One of us has misunderstood elefantinos post.

I understood it as his son lived there for 8 years. His landlord “discovered” he was subleasing—which is against the lease and evicted him for violating the lease.

Once he was evicted and no longer a master tenant the rent was raised on the new tenants.

What you’re describing twin is 100% illegal but that’s not the scenario that was described. The landlord can not use sub leasing as a basis for increasing the rent over the API

My understanding, from Elefantino's post, is that his son was the only remaining original (AKA "master") tenant. If my reading is correct, than my answer is also correct. The rent remains the same (with annual allowable increases) until he leaves. Period.

If however, Mike's son was NOT one of the master tenants, then the landlord had the right to raise the rent. Even then, however, there are a few caveats: did the landlord respond to any specific maintenance requests made by Mike's son? If so, that would be an acknowledgment of tenancy. Did he cash a check by Mikes son? Ditto.

What you (JTakeda) and I have in common is front row seats to a huge landlord/tenant battle that is only getting worse ...

[jtakeda]

My understanding, from Elefantino's post, is that his son was the only remaining original (AKA "master") tenant. If my reading is correct, than my answer is also correct. The rent remains the same (with annual allowable increases) until he leaves. Period.

Yup. In your scenario you are right.
I took landlord “gave him 30 days” as 30 days to vacate the premises.

In any case there are many scenarios where the rent can be raised above annual allowable increase. He can bank the water bill, improvement costs and years where they didn’t raise the rent as long as they do their calculation correct.

Anyway this is a drift from the original topic.

[jtakeda]

The definition of 6.14:

6.14 NOTICE

A landlord can serve a notice (called a 6.14 Notice, based on Section 6.14 of the Rent Board Rules and Regulations, see link here) on a subtenant saying that he recognizes that person merely as an “occupant,” and that when the master- and co-tenants leave, the apartment will be treated as vacant and the rent can go up to market value. Every year after that market rent increase, the landlord can only raise the rent by the allowable amount.

Understood. What landlords are doing now is pretending they didn’t even know a new person moved in. They refuse rent from the new person and feign ignorance. That way if an eviction matter comes up they have 1 less person to serve.

You can throw all the codes and rule books at me, I’m telling you that landlords are finding loop holes to sidestep the rules.

You’re right. It’s not allowed, but it doesn’t matter, they’ve found a way around it. It’s actually a huge part of the resentment and attitudes towards new residents.


I’m trying to figure out if you think I’m just plain wrong or you’re trying to prove you’re right? I’m confused but either way 6.14 is a thing of the past. Landlords are now pretending like they didn’t even know a new person moved in. Ignoring the 6.14 that way they can just evict the master tenant and not have to hunt down every occupant and serve them personal


PS. I think this whole drift is unnecessary and it sounds like we’re both on the same side here. Either way—it’s really sad that tenants have to watch their every move because the landlord can pull some sketchy gray area move and kick them out. It takes a lot of the stability away from the housing market and causes stress

[XXtwindad]

Understood. What landlords are doing now is pretending they didn’t even know a new person moved in. They refuse rent from the new person and feign ignorance. That way if an eviction matter comes up they have 1 less person to serve.

You can throw all the codes and rule books at me, I’m telling you that landlords are finding loop holes to sidestep the rules.

You’re right. It’s not allowed, but it doesn’t matter, they’ve found a way around it. It’s actually a huge part of the resentment and attitudes towards new residents.


I’m trying to figure out if you think I’m just plain wrong or you’re trying to prove you’re right? I’m confused but either way 6.14 is a thing of the past. Landlords are now pretending like they didn’t even know a new person moved in. Ignoring the 6.14 that way they can just evict the master tenant and not have to hunt down every occupant and serve them personal

How about this JT? The best way to protect yourself, regardless of whether you're a tenant or a landlord (I've been a tenant and own property) is to KNOW THE LAW. It's what I advise friends who currently rent or who own property.

There are certainly unscrupulous landlords. That's why Feinstein instituted rent control in the first place. But there are certainly tenants who flout the law as well. When there's so much as stake, it's human nature to bend the rules and find loopholes.

[pdonk]

And on a lighter note - the full house house is for sale for a mere $6 million.

https://themash.ca/realestategossip/2019/5/the-full-house-house-is-on-the-market

With respect to Charles' point, his 250k people living on 60x120 lots would consume approximately 19,000 acres (including roads and some public uses), but not including related employment lands, public uses and areas for preservation of natural features. The approximate length of roads is in the range of 500 miles of roads (and sewers, and water lines and power)

So when people complain about density, think about being able to reduce these numbers even by 1/4 and the long term savings it would give were you live.

[ibis]

The San Francisco I loved growing up in the Outer Richmond is long gone.

This is where we landed (across the street from Ocean Beach), and are lucky to have two off street parking spaces. Balboa and Clement still have lots of quirky places to eat, but yeah, I am on hyper alert if we are walking around past sun down. We work in Marin, so our reverse commute is a win, and its a great bike ride to work for me 2-3 days a week over the bridge (when its not raining). I hear you though...hit and miss feeling when it comes to the city. I like living out by the beach...a little less craziness than other parts of the city. Events like Off The Grid events are great out in the Presidio on Thursday nights...perhaps its a different "charm" than what used to be.

[paredown]

Spotted this and thought of this thread--a look at the "new" San Francisco and tech assimilation, complete with $7500/month rents:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/letter-from-silicon-valley/in-san-francisco-tech-money-doesnt-buy-happiness?utm_source=pocket-newtab

[XXtwindad]

(and why I left property management...)

My recent exchange with JT (it would be great to hear more from you, since you're still intimately involved with the process) prompted me to reflect on my long-ago career in property management, and why I left the field. I think it's germane to the discussion.

Most rent ordinances in CA are local. San Francisco's was instituted (reluctantly) in 1979 by Mayor Feinstein when a North Beach landlord went bonkers and started jacking up rents. This creates an arbitrary red line: buildings built before June of 1979 are under rent control, and buildings built after that date are not. You can, therefore, have a situation where one person is paying $750 per month for a studio, and their neighbor is paying $3,000.

Arbitrary? Yes, for sure. Unfair? Well, it depends. The individual who has been paying $750 per month has probably been paying that rent for YEARS, so the owner has certainly received a good ROI. On the flip side, if you're a recent immigrant to SF, you had better have a six figure income to make it.

Rent control differs from "vacancy control" (AKA Costa-Hawkins) which is a state statute, and mandates that after a rent controlled tenant leaves, the rent can go back to "market rate." Costa-Hawkins was on the November ballot in CA last year. The attempt to repeal it failed. Which I think is a good thing. There are many small landlords who have all their savings and investments in a building. They (largely) play by the rules, and deserve a decent ROI.

Conversely, I think rent control is a good thing. I think it should be universally applied to all residential buildings in SF. In California, you do, after all, have rent control for owners. It's called Prop 13. You can't favor one class (owners) over another class (renters). That's unfair and discriminatory. Prop 13 has starved local coffers of revenue for years. Unfortunately, repealing it would have the same effect of repealing rent control … tossing many long-term residents out of their homes. So, I'm not sure what the solution is there.

Anyone unaware with how brutal the rent and affordability wars are in SF should familiarize themselves with the cautionary tale of Citi Apartments. Their reign of terror ended about a decade ago, but left a lot of carnage in its wake.

Helmed by a savvy, charismatic, and avaricious local son named Frank Lembi, Citi Apartments snapped up large residential buildings at an unprecedented rate in the late nineties and early aughts. In the wake of the first dot-com bust, many new building owners found themselves overleveraged and underwater. Citi Apartments swooped in and made them an offer they couldn't refuse: paying twice as much (or more) what their building was worth. At one point, Citi Apartments locked down almost all the new multi-unit (rent-controlled) buildings for sale.

But it was a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make their money back was to coerce and intimidate long-term (often elderly) tenants out of their rent controlled units. Their tactics were brutal and obscene.

Repeated and harassing phone calls offering a paltry sum to the tenants if they left. Shutting down elevators which would disadvantage elderly and infirm tenants who couldn't use the stairs. "Maintenance" on units at all hours which created a noise disturbance. Bundling checks for months and then depositing them all at once. When the checks consequently bounced, they would give the tenants a "Three Day Notice to Pay or Quit." Big, burly "security guards" who would hang out in the lobby, checking tenant IDs for "illegal" tenants. The list goes on...

When Citi Apartments bought the buildings I managed (the previous landlords were honest and decent people) I had a choice: leave the profession or work for the Devil. I choose to leave property management entirely. I couldn't countenance making my income from coercing little old ladies out of rent controlled units. Sadly, judging from the number of new hires I saw at Citi Apartments, many people were fine with that moral calculation. Before I left, I went door to door and told tenants who was coming, and to know their rights. Many tenants refused to believe that Armageddon was coming. Within a few weeks, they began frantically calling me for help.

Citi Apartments eventually dissolved under a flurry of class action lawsuits, including lawsuit against them from the City of San Francisco. But I think their story remains a cautionary tale of what happens when you have a severely impacted city with a dearth of affordable housing combined with an influx of astonishing wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitiApartments

[XXtwindad]

Here is an interesting option for lower income housing that has recently occurred in my neighbourhood. The city, in partnership with a local not for profit has purchased a rooming house in order to preserve it.

http://www.pnlt.ca/

While this option only preserves a few of the at risk units in the area, it is an interesting option. I see that there is a similar organization in SF, that appears to have about 15 buildings under its management.

https://sfclt.org/

One other example of alternative thinking about affordable housing is a company called options for homes. It offers alternative financing options in order to get people in and typically only sells to end users not "inspeculators". https://www.optionsforhomes.ca/#about_us The feds up here are thinking of a similar approach through CMHC (similar to fannie mae or freddie mae - not sure whose who) in terms of equity mortgages and insurance.

In terms of making housing affordable, creativity is the key and thinking of ways to navigate the regulatory and financial systems in a different manner are the solutions.

I tend to think of housing in the following terms - is it fair to tell me I can't have or want what you have in terms of the location, type or cost of housing?

These are great links. Thanks for sharing.

[XXtwindad]

(and why I left property management...)

My recent exchange with JT (it would be great to hear more from you, since you're still intimately involved with the process) prompted me to reflect on my long-ago career in property management, and why I left the field. I think it's germane to the discussion.

Most rent ordinances in CA are local. San Francisco's was instituted (reluctantly) in 1979 by Mayor Feinstein when a North Beach landlord went bonkers and started jacking up rents. This creates an arbitrary red line: buildings built before June of 1979 are under rent control, and buildings built after that date are not. You can, therefore, have a situation where one person is paying $750 per month for a studio, and their neighbor is paying $3,000.

Arbitrary? Yes, for sure. Unfair? Well, it depends. The individual who has been paying $750 per month has probably been paying that rent for YEARS, so the owner has certainly received a good ROI. On the flip side, if you're a recent immigrant to SF, you had better have a six figure income to make it.

Rent control differs from "vacancy control" (AKA Costa-Hawkins) which is a state statute, and mandates that after a rent controlled tenant leaves, the rent can go back to "market rate." Costa-Hawkins was on the November ballot in CA last year. The attempt to repeal it failed. Which I think is a good thing. There are many small landlords who have all their savings and investments in a building. They (largely) play by the rules, and deserve a decent ROI.

Conversely, I think rent control is a good thing. I think it should be universally applied to all residential buildings in SF. In California, you do, after all, have rent control for owners. It's called Prop 13. You can't favor one class (owners) over another class (renters). That's unfair and discriminatory. Prop 13 has starved local coffers of revenue for years. Unfortunately, repealing it would have the same effect of repealing rent control … tossing many long-term residents out of their homes. So, I'm not sure what the solution is there.

Anyone unaware with how brutal the rent and affordability wars are in SF should familiarize themselves with the cautionary tale of Citi Apartments. Their reign of terror ended about a decade ago, but left a lot of carnage in its wake.

Helmed by a savvy, charismatic, and avaricious local son named Frank Lembi, Citi Apartments snapped up large residential buildings at an unprecedented rate in the late nineties and early aughts. In the wake of the first dot-com bust, many new building owners found themselves overleveraged and underwater. Citi Apartments swooped in and made them an offer they couldn't refuse: paying twice as much (or more) what their building was worth. At one point, Citi Apartments locked down almost all the new multi-unit (rent-controlled) buildings for sale.

But it was a Ponzi scheme. The only way to make their money back was to coerce and intimidate long-term (often elderly) tenants out of their rent controlled units. Their tactics were brutal and obscene.

Repeated and harassing phone calls offering a paltry sum to the tenants if they left. Shutting down elevators which would disadvantage elderly and infirm tenants who couldn't use the stairs. "Maintenance" on units at all hours which created a noise disturbance. Bundling checks for months and then depositing them all at once. When the checks consequently bounced, they would give the tenants a "Three Day Notice to Pay or Quit." Big, burly "security guards" who would hang out in the lobby, checking tenant IDs for "illegal" tenants. The list goes on...

When Citi Apartments bought the buildings I managed (the previous landlords were honest and decent people) I had a choice: leave the profession or work for the Devil. I choose to leave property management entirely. I couldn't countenance making my income from coercing little old ladies out of rent controlled units. Sadly, judging from the number of new hires I saw at Citi Apartments, many people were fine with that moral calculation. Before I left, I went door to door and told tenants who was coming, and to know their rights. Many tenants refused to believe that Armageddon was coming. Within a few weeks, they began frantically calling me for help.

Citi Apartments eventually dissolved under a flurry of class action lawsuits, including lawsuit against them from the City of San Francisco. But I think their story remains a cautionary tale of what happens when you have a severely impacted city with a dearth of affordable housing combined with an influx of astonishing wealth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CitiApartments

A link on Costa-Hawkins: https://la.curbed.com/2018/1/12/16883276/rent-control-california-costa-hawkins-explained

[Totalinsanity]

Disclaimer: I own a single family home in Contra Costa County. I also have a strong preference for more rural living.

Density restrictions aren't making places better. Contra Costa County kind of sucks. From a biking perspective, I like that I have easy access to Mount Diablo, but I go out of my way to avoid the majority of roads in the county, because they're too narrow, with high traffic, and with either no shoulder or cars parked all along the street. I don't know what vision they think they're going for, but it's not a smart one. The new developments going in around San Ramon and Livermore are downright dystopian to me (for those of you not in the area, picture identical 3,500 sq ft homes on 5,000 sq ft lots, packed 2-3 deep in housing developments).

The quote you highlighted from the story about people moving to California in the 19th century really highlights how ridiculous is. First, that somehow California should still be trying to emulate the vision of people who have been dead for over 100 years, and second, because that vision is already gone. There are still decent open spaces (protected state/regional land), but the vast majority of single family homes are packed in tightly with other single family homes--they're not coming with a lot of land. The single family homes near downtown Walnut Creek / BART are garbage--very expensive garbage, but they tend to be very small, run down, and rented out to commuters who want easy access to public transit. It's hard to imagine a worse design than that.

Density isn't really the problem in the area. What could actually improve quality of life is to have more density, more mixed zoning, and better public transit. You want to put people near where they want to be. These aren't farming towns anymore, and they're not going to be in the future.

I grew up in Walnut Creek and have rode in most places in Contra Costa County.
1. Roads in most suburbs including Contra Costa County are incredible to ride.
2. Most/many houses in Walnut Creek Pleasant Hill and Concord are within a short bike/trail ride to a Bart Station.
3. Love your dystopian comment about San Ramon housing :)
4. I think that using bicycles as a primary mode of within city transport in areas like Concord and Walnut Creek could literally save the areas from themselves. There is a Bike Concord Bike advocacy group you might check out. For of road group if you do not do Encina Wednesday night rides they are a fun group ;)