> To subsidize affordable homes for 100,000 people would cost $25 billion. So yes, we should build as much subsidized affordable housing as we can.
What?! Why on earth would I want my tax dollars subsidizing your rent? I mean, charity to the poor, homeless, etc. is one thing (it's good), but subsidizing your rent so you can be closer to boutique coffee shops? Instead of, you know, helping the truly needy get health care? Or investing in education? Gimme a break.
> If we want to actually make the city affordable for most people—a place where a young person or an immigrant can move to pursue their dreams
Why does San Fran specifically have to be that place? The Bay Area's a big place.
By the end of the article, the author's right about needing a more integrated metropolitan policy, but this attitude that "everyone deserves to live in San Francisco, even people with no money" gets tiring after a while. Neighborhoods and cities gentrify. People move elsewhere, to the new-and-upcoming-and-more-interesting neighborhoods/cities. Places change. That's just how it is.
Any thriving city needs a mix of people. If for no other reason, then think out support staff. What about waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers or any number of low-paying/skill but absolutely needed workers. Where should they live? Why can't they live close to work? And if they need to commute into the city to work, how far out can they get pushed before it's not worth it any more?
Thinking that an entire city could consist of highly paid tech workers is a fantasy.
And what about families? It's next to impossible to afford to have a family in the city. What will those tech workers do when they want to start a family? Do you really want them all moving to the east bay instead of helping to grow the city?
> waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers... Where should they live? Why can't they live close to work?
Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right.
> how far out can they get pushed before it's not worth it any more?
They won't, that's the magic of a free market. Wages/salaries will go up in the city so that it's always still "worth it".
> Do you really want them all [families] moving to the east bay instead of helping to grow the city?
I mean, why not? I live in NYC. Plenty of people I know leave NYC when they want to start a family. Or at a minimum, they leave Manhattan to move out to Brooklyn or Queens.
You can see how ridiculous the argument is, by the fact that its polar opposite sounds the same: "do you really want all the families who would be helping to grow the east bay, moving into downtown SF?"
Look, there are certainly coordination, transit, etc. problems with the Bay Area. And there are income-disparity problems nationwide. But people seem to confuse those with just being afraid of change/gentrification, and that doesn't help.
You live in NYC. You have a 24-hr public transportation system going between the boroughs that is a flat fare, per ride, no matter where you go. This makes commuting a very feasible and affordable option for those that can't afford to live in Manhattan.
Things are a bit different in SF. While you have 468 stations, we have 44. Expansion of our public transportation system has been hampered by NIMBY homeowners who have done all they can to prevent it. Rents in areas that surround BART stations (http://www.bart.gov/stations/)are still quite high, except around some of the further out stops (http://rentheatmap.com/sanfrancisco.html). Unfortunately, the further you live from the city, the more it costs to commute to the city (http://www.bart.gov/tickets/calculator/).
So while everyone moving away from the city like folks in Manhattan do would be nice, it's not that easy here.
Wouldn't it be a good starting point to work towards a better public transportation system in the Bay Area then?
I see that you're bringing up NIMBY, but that should be the area to focus on instead of somehow trying to control the underlying problem through things like rent control.
I personally see the California High Speed Rail system as an interesting option there. If they offer regular rail service and I can reach my work in Silicon Valley within 1 hour then I would consider moving out of Silicon Valley. Especially so if the city is interesting or becomes interesting through the increasing number of people moving there and if they offer Wifi on the train so that I could even start working there.
This is similar to Atlanta, which is considered a "car centric" city.
Our Public transportation system "MARTA" only operates fully throughout two counties in our metro area. The reason for this is that many citizens in the suburbs are afraid of what will happen if they provide easy access for urban "characters" that are presumed to be "bad or unsavory" because they cant afford a car. (I live in one such county)
Every time there are talks of expanding MARTA (train or bus lines) to other counties people come out in protest.
> So while everyone moving away from the city like folks in Manhattan do would be nice, it's not that easy here.
It's actually quite easy for people to not live in the central city, which is why of the 7.15 million people in the SF Bay Area metropolitan area, only a little over 800,000 live in the City and County of San Francisco. The ratio between the population of San Francisco and that of the whole metro area isn't really all that different than the ratio of Manhattan's population to that of the New York Metro Area.
> It's actually quite easy for people to not live in the central city, which is why of the 7.15 million people in the SF Bay Area metropolitan area, only a little over 800,000 live in the City and County of San Francisco.
I thought the article proved that people don't live in the city because there isn't enough housing and/or it's too expensive, not because it's easy to live outside the city.
> I thought the article proved that people don't live in the city because there isn't enough housing and/or it's too expensive, not because it's easy to live outside the city.
The article didn't prove anything, it started with mistaking anecdote for data, and proceeded to tell a just-so story to explain the anecdote, and then make a series of value claims about what needs to be done based on that just-so story, explicitly grounding those claims in at least one false fact claim (that the three high population bay area cities are the places with "the space" in the bay area to accept a disproportionate share of the region's growth.)
People are talking about this because previously the problem didn't directly affect them. When you make $120k/year and all of a sudden the guys making $60k/year are priced out of the market you feel bad but you can't directly relate. When in turn you get priced out of the market (as is happening in many SF neighborhoods), all of a sudden you feel treated unfairly, and start complaining about how you were once part of the fabric of the neighborhood:)
I can actually see it both ways, but you have to accept or reject the argument in it's entirety instead of setting some artificial cap for how much you have to earn to be able to live in SF, which is essentially what's happening today.
And by the way this is a poor free-market argument. If this was a free-market, regulatory actors would act rationally from an economic perspective and allow construction of as many new units as the market can bare.
>Why should they? Of course they can commute, just like many highly-paid professionals choose to commute too. Nobody considers a short commute a fundamental human right.
A car is extremely expensive. Unless you're planning on making the public transportation system usable (which would be a herculean task).
Honestly, I think that's what the Bay Area needs to aim at. But of course it's probably more impossible a problem to solve, even more so housing issues.
I think this was one of the points of the article - that this isn't a SF specific problem. The entire region needs to get together to start to plan better for growth. Lack of housing isn't a SF problem, it's a problem for the entire Peninsula. (I'm not as familiar with the Easy Bay).
With decent urban planning, the region could maximize its growth potential. Without it, we'll have major issues in the near future.
Not exactly. The free market is also what enables neighborhood preservationists to keep redevelopment out. Well that and the horrid examples of redevelopment 40 and 50 years ago that are getting uglier and less livable by the decade.
Developers have done a good job of buying off the media, and the Chronicle has never waivered from its support of those sectors that still advertise in its pages. That's why many of us are not sad to see the otherwise well written paper giving way to Internet new sources that, this article excepted, are less inclined to skew their editorial policy in favor of anything real-estate (-development) related.
It doesn't seem so ridiculous if you follow the money. The author is "executive director of SPUR, a Bay Area nonprofit membership organization" whose directors, advisors and members are comprised almost exclusively of real-estate developers and investors.
Seriously, a train comes literally every 15 minutes and takes 15 minutes to get to the Mission. If you get stuck there after 12:30 it's only a $50 cab ride bike across the bridge.
Yep. Lived on 14th and Lakeside all of last year. I have been stranded in SF multiple times. The trick is to not take Uber and pay cash.
Furthermore, unless you get stuck out multiple times a week half the rent cost still puts you way ahead. I was paying $1200 with parking for 800 sq ft and a dishwasher right on Lake Merritt. I never felt in danger there.
Living in Emeryville on San Pablo was another story... That was only $600 though ha.
Does this only apply to SF, or should we also subsidize housing for poor people in Malibu? How can I get in on that? I'd love to live somewhere I cannot afford on other people's dime...
> This applies to any city that seeks some form of income and social diversity
This seems like a tautology. "A city that seeks income diversity should seek income diversity"... the point is that I and crazygringo do not think that the city needs to seek that; it is a-okay in my book if a city becomes gentrified.
> and it only applies to you if you choose to live in that city.
Okay, I choose to live in Malibu. Sadly I cannot afford it. Who is going to think of poor jlgreco, unable to afford living in the beach community of his choice? Is my desire to live in Malibu less valid than anyone else's desire to live in San Francisco?
Just to be clear, "income diversity" in this case could/should mean income for the city, as in a diverse tax-base. This is definitely a desirable thing for a city, so that when the inevitable tech crash happens, the city's financial base won't collapse.
Not Malibu, but right next door in Santa Monica they have a crapload of subsidized housing in the most expensive part of town close to 3rd St Promenade and the Ocean/Pier.
Just to give you some perspective, I grew up in Concord which is about 25 miles east of San Francisco. My dad bought our house in the late 60's because that was the closest place to SF that he could afford for our family. He commuted for decades to SF and Oakland by car and bart. I never heard him complain about the commute or how the bay area should do something for his family.
SF is doing just fine with regards to waitresses, cooks, cleaning staff, janitors, bus drivers, etc. Have you heard anything otherwise? Of course, many of these people do not choose to live in SF, or cannot afford to live in SF ,so they end up having long commutes. This does not seem to keep them from taking jobs in SF. If enough of them decide it is not worth it to commute, their employers will entice them to do so with higher wages. You know, the free market and all...
You know many lower income people who are commuting long distances into the city? Really?
Sure, many come from Oakland. Which was the point of the article.
And when I was still in school and knew a lot of people in these types of jobs, many worked two (or more, if part time). And still couldn't really make rent. This is why I never tip below 20% unless the server didn't do their job very well. It's expensive to live here and they have a tough situation.
Also, Bus Drivers don't belong on that list. They are certainly paid more than wait staff, etc.
I'm no libertarian, but how about market forces? As fewer blue-collar workers can afford to live in or close to SF, the labor pool will shrink and wages will go up.
Part of the argument here is that if government regulation has created artificial scarcity: if market forces were at work then more living spaces would be built.
On the other hand, the market isn't everything, especially in the near-term. The market, for instance, won't create diversity in the city; it will create a monoculture of whatever is working that decade. So, right now, in SF, it will create a monoculture of tech workers as, in Manhattan, it almost created a monoculture of finance workers in the '80s/'90s. Monocultures lack resilience and if NYC hadn't traded its finance economy for a tourist-driven one, it could have been hard times. Booms and busts may be okay from a Liberal philosophy point of view, but it's hell on the people caught in it.
The other thing about diversity is it's part of the reason people move somewhere in the first place. One of the reasons tech has moved from the Valley up into SF is that SF has more diversity, so it's not all tech all the time. It would make sense to try to preserve what it was you wanted in the first place (even if, a la any gentrifying neighborhood, it may be a bit of a lost cause.)
NYC traded finance for tourism? Something like 1/3 of the cit is still employed in jobs tied to the financial industry (and it pays over half the wages in Manhattan). I literally can't remember knowing a single person working in tourism when I lived there.
Scientists are trained to look at the data when confronted with a hypothesis.
In this context it's worth looking at Aspen, CO. Wages for service workers there have not gone up, and 60-mile commutes on mountain roads are common. I have no theory for why that is, but I do not expect a different outcome for SF.
Well, a scientist (or other person concerned with the underpinning of fact claims) might note that the supposed exodus that is the factual premise around which the value-based arguments here revolve is not evident except in anecdote, and that in fact SF's population is growing rather than showing signs of an exodus, while Oakland, the supposed destination of the out-of-SF exodus, is shrinking.
Market forces will definitely apply, but my concern is that the market will react too slowly. That by the time the market can react and raise wages the labor pool will be shrunk too much and either services won't be available, or they will be too expensive for even those who could otherwise afford to live in the city. You can't just get a labor force to move back to an area overnight (just like these problems aren't going to appear overnight). So, in order to compensate, the market will swing wildly until it can stabilize.
That's what I'm worried about. Populations shift, people move, cities grow. But, if you're running a city, you want growth to be stable and predictable. If you drive out all of your lower-income workers to other cities and "import" your labor, you are setting yourself up for an unstable labor market in the future.
These things need to be planned for, and it doesn't seem like there is a lot of thought being put into it.
This has more to do with income inequality than housing. The middle-class has largely evaporated (tech workers are probably the closest thing to it now). And, even when there was a thriving middle-class in this country, they didn't really live in places like Manhattan anyway -- they commuted in from suburbs. Building low-income housing is fraught with difficulty. Even if you were to pour money into it, you'd still risk manufacturing slums anyway.
The world is different and has been for years. Nobody gives a shit about your family or community... That's a quaint notions hat died with ethnic/religious neighborhood blocs.
NYC is a great example -- millions of people fled the high costs and hassles of living in the city to Long Island, New Jersey and upstate. Companies did too -- there were 10,000 factories in NYC in 1969 and something like 500 in 1999. My family moved from Queens to a town 100 miles north in the bad old days (late 80s) when the principal of the middle school that I was heading to had his car firebombed.
San Francisco's situation is more nimby than NYC. People discover it and love it, but want to close the door for the next guy. As long as times are good, it's a winning strategy. When times turn bad, it will get really bad, just as it did in the 80s in NYC.
This is easy, change the stupid zoning and density restrictions in SF and the builders will come and capitalize on the pent up housing demand. Increased inventory in the main parts of the city will lower prices elsewhere -- basic supply and demand, no subsidies needed.
the city remained a walkable, urban paradise compared to most of America.
Most higher density cities are even more walkable urban paradises. Plus they have the added benefit of far better public transport than SF offers.
Wait, what? There is a reason things are the way they are. People do not want you to live there, affordably. Period. Cities are "designed" to be expensive and exclusive. That, in part is their value.
On the contrary. Historically, cities are designed to be cheap and high density. The expensive part comes when people expect the same housing standards/square footage as they would get in the country.
Whilst I've never seen San Francisco for myself, it sounds like they are trying to buck the trend and go for expensive and exclusive (as you say), with various complicated planning and zoning laws. It is definitely against the norm however.
This is silly, nonsense. The centre of any major capital...London, Paris, Moscow, New York...like SF is incredibly expensive. The purpose of a capital city is to concentrate wealth and power, so that those who need to exercise it can do so efficiently. People move to SF to network and to have access to VC capital (for example). You should expect to encounter economic rent-seeking when you get there. You also shoud expect to see laws and regulations that keep out people of color and transients (eg, parking restrictions in the hamptons; no BART service south of SF to places like Palo Alto).
I believe you're thinking a bit too US centric if you assume that regulations are there to keep out people of colour...
I questioned your premise that cities were "designed" to be expensive, whereas I believe they merely "become" expensive through basic laws of supply and demand. The reason cities such as London and San Francisco never grow ever taller skyscrapers is because of planning laws and regulations that restrict supply - not, a free market of supply and demand.
London is a good example of such in that it has ancient viewing rights that restrict the height of nearby buildings, the classic case being that no building can be higher than St. Pauls (a relaxed principle nowadays, but still enforced sometimes). This is a major reason why the old houses in London haven't been knocked down to be replaced by a whole skyline of skyscrapers, but instead are massively expensive properties compared to the rest of the country.
I questioned your premise that cities were "designed" to be expensive, whereas I believe they merely "become" expensive through basic laws of supply and demand.
Capital cities are a "premium" product, and they are designed to be so. People pay the premium, because they are effective in the task for which they are designed. Where do you think the "demand" comes from? The demand is for the productivity improvements that can accrue to those who control assets that are highly productive. But note the two words: (1) control; and (2) productive. To extract maximum rents, the product must be under control (so expect a class of laws designed to g;tee this). And secondly, expect a design which caters to high-end productivity (ie, networking, and its corralry...social exclusivity).
Capital city, the area of a country, province, region, or state, regarded as enjoying primary status, usually but not always the seat of the government
If you need to brush up on the history of new york and san francisco as 'financial capitals'.
Alright, if you want to use the term metaphorically, that's ok.
SF may be a financial capital to some degree, but your comment about VC is still off: they're not based in the city, and they didn't take much interest in companies in the city at all until recently.
Footnote [1] If you're going to be pedantic, be correct. Not only is your use of words incorrect (pedantic/ly), the logic is insufficient to be a valid argument (on substance). The seperation of the political seat of power (in both california/sacramento and the us/washington DC) was (as historical fact) done in repsonse to desire for a seperation of political capital from financial capital (her being used in the sense of assets) to minimize potential corruption. The presence of capital (assets) in a city is what makes that a capital (descriptive) city. This is why you can have non-political Capital cities (like NY, SF) without speaking illogically or using incorrect grammar.
Both Manhattan and Paris are more expensive than SF. Not just in rent, but in almost all daily expenses. Adding density does not necessarily solve the problem.
Don't conflate Manhattan and central Paris (the low number Arrondissments) with all of SF.
You can find decent housing in NYC, with pricing comparable to other smaller metro areas in the U.S. like Seattle or D.C. without too much fuss. Same goes for Paris. That's why most people in those cities don't live in the center. Brooklyn or Queens, for example, has a larger population than Manhattan. But only Staten Island has a lower population Density than SF.
The problem with SF is that it has ~Manhattan prices without the number of available units. This means that laughably high housing prices get pushed further and further away from SF proper and out into the Bay Area.
Arguably, if you think of the Bay Area as one city, this makes sense, it's the same in any major city.
It's not so much that someplace like Cupertino or Santa Clara are expensive by themselves, but that you're paying much more for similar housing than you would a similar distance from other similar sized city centers. Yet people move there and saddle themselves with ridiculous mortgages because the alternative is to live in someplace like Stockton.
Dramatically increasing the density of SF proper could make the outer areas and even the East Bay area much more reasonable places to live. However, it would mean lots of people who bought high in the current market would lose their shirts if such a thing were to happen.
I remember the very first time I visited SF, my friend was regaling us with tales of the insane housing prices. No slouch and from a pretty expensive area myself I figured it was just an issue of demand like you'd see in any other big city. But when I actually got to the city I was floored with how low the density obviously was. The solution to the high housing prices seemed idiotically simple then as it does now. Build SF up up up! Areas around every major BART station should also be higher density areas. Relax the density further out from these centers and you'd end up with a much more livable city plan like pretty much every single other city in the country.
By way of comparison, the D.C. metro area (not exactly a well planned urban paradise) has about the same population density as SF Bay Area yet housing can be had for probably around 2/3s the price at comparable distances from the city center.
No way. I live in Manhattan and SF sounds like a nightmare. I have so many options in terms of other boroughs (subway), nice, pre-war suburbs with walkable areas (LIRR & metro north commuter rail), or even another state (PATH train, NJ transit). SF's transit is a joke, even within the city itself (getting from west to east), which is the real problem here.
And there's a greater diversity of opportunity here if you're not just in the tech startup scene. I have a feeling SF will bust when the VC spigot dries up.
But both of those cities have their metropolitan areas measured in tens of millions of people, versus SF in the single millions. SF has the rates of a city ten times its size because its population density is so constrained.
The population of the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose metropolitan Bay Area is 8.3 million [1]. The population of the Baltimore-Washington DC metropolitan area is 9.3 million [2]. That doesn't seem that significant.
People don't deserve to live in San Francisco (i.e. it's not some basic right that needs to be met through subsidized housing), but San Francisco deserves to have a diverse set of people if it is to be a great city, and not just a millionaire enclave.
From the city's point of view, there's a problem to be solved in terms of getting different kinds of people in the city.
You seem to only be able to see the world for the way it is now, and has been over the recent past. Getting stuck on these thinking patterns is self-limiting, much like getting stuck on a programming language like PHP-- both are one-trick-ponies. We thankfully live in a world that, long term, is driven by imagination and possibility. And not always are the "leaders" complete and massive assholes (which is our main immediate problem at this moment in time).
But urban centers are where everyone IS. Its where connections happen and where people are mutually drawn, even if their address doesn't say they live there. The opportunities for a wider range of connections and possibilities are what breathe life into a city--what has allowed San Francisco to make the transition away from industry as gracefully as it has.
Manhattan is the nucleus of New York. San Francisco is the nucleus of the Bay Area. If you lose that center, you end up with the nonsense sprawl that is LA. No common place for people to meet and come together. No way to rationalize or prioritize transit and other public needs.
The solution doesn't have to be subsidized housing. Better public transit allows people to reside further away and still have access to the city's opportunities, and gives everyone more mobility. But if it is becomes impossible for new people and young people to access the city because of pricing or traffic, how can San Francisco continue to flourish? Places change, but ensuring they change in a positive direction takes hard work and intention.
> Why on earth would I want my tax dollars subsidizing your rent?
Because service jobs and because traffic congestion and because all service job related prices.
Some counties and states provide "affordable" housing for people who work in that county if they make below a certain wage and above a certain wage. They basically make it affordable for taxi drivers, waiters, cooks, delivery people and other low paid job workers to live in that area. This way those people are not driving from farther way increasing congestion on the roads and I guess as a side-effect lower the prices in those particular areas (food, taxi, etc).
Now whether that is desirable, it is a net beneficial thing or not or just creates more problems I don't know, I am just presenting one reason some localities do it.
Is it a subsidy to the underpaid, or a subsidy to he corporations that employ them and don't have to pay true market wages. In other boom economies, such as parts of Alberta with its oil industry, it's not uncommon for fast food staff to make $15-$20 an hour and be granted benefits. Why should the taxpaying middle class spare McDonalds this expense?
What?! Why on earth would I want my tax dollars subsidizing your rent? I mean, charity to the poor, homeless, etc. is one thing (it's good), but subsidizing your rent so you can be closer to boutique coffee shops? Instead of, you know, helping the truly needy get health care? Or investing in education? Gimme a break.
> If we want to actually make the city affordable for most people—a place where a young person or an immigrant can move to pursue their dreams
Why does San Fran specifically have to be that place? The Bay Area's a big place.
By the end of the article, the author's right about needing a more integrated metropolitan policy, but this attitude that "everyone deserves to live in San Francisco, even people with no money" gets tiring after a while. Neighborhoods and cities gentrify. People move elsewhere, to the new-and-upcoming-and-more-interesting neighborhoods/cities. Places change. That's just how it is.