Maybe I have to state the obvious. Many of us live in San Francisco. It’s not some abstract far away place. It’s rather impolite to tell people in their faces they are living in a slum.
To you, it’s some abstract topic. To many of us, it’s our home.
I am just amazed by the amount of hatred people have about San Francisco, even though they have little if at all interaction with it. I don’t get up everyday and get mad at Antartica. I don’t go around telling people living there, everyday, they are living in a hellhole.
That’s because they don’t pretend that the Antartica is warm and cozy. In fact, most people going there are pretty blunt about how bad the weather is.
Looks, manch, you of all people should be concerned because you live there. Because what’s happening in the tenderloin will spill out to your neighborhood if there are no laws, no police, no homeless shelters to reign it in.
I’ll also point out, that I do send a kid to school there. And he passes through the tent cities. So I feel like I’m entitled to a slight amount of complaining. When he started 6 years ago, there were no tent cities on the walk from Caltrain to the school, but there were still defecation issues which are EASILY solved by opening the day shelters back up so people can use bathrooms.
In fact, I remember a story about a shelter that the city was trying to shut down. They convinced the city to let them stay open by calculating the sheer volume of excrement that they were keeping off the streets by staying open.
Who says I am not concerned? Of course I see the problems the city is having. What I don’t see though are easy solutions. People running the city are not morons. We may think there are easy solutions only because we don’t know the complexities of the problem and the different agendas of the various vested interests.
Opening more shelters seems the obvious answer but try opening one in any neighborhood and see what the NIMBY’s reactions will be.
Root cause of the homeless problem is housing. Weiner tried to push thru many pro-housing bills but they all died in the state legislature. NIMBYism is an extremely powerful force, and it involves both Democrats and Republicans.
Back to topic. Falling rent may hurt landlords but it’s great for young people who may want to come in and start new things. Rent in SF is getting very competitive compared to other locales.
This exactly the problem. There should be investigation to all IPOs of past 40 years as money printing through them has made Asia/Europe exceedingly wealthy and create competitors to all industries, Agriculture of US and US buried in debt, trade deficits and lack of diversified skills with population increasingly depended on government both foreign and domestic.
Limited renter protections, no payoffs for moving out, no rent control. The more comfortable landlords are with renting to others, the more units will be available and rents should fall.
Mandatory rehab or jail for drug users who are caught shooting up or committing crimes including disturbing the peace while high. We’ll call it the social deal–if you can’t do drugs without others noticing, you can’t do them. If we can’t tell, you can carry on.
Day centers need to open back up. Apparently they were closed down at some point in the 2000s, and that’s what’s caused the use of gutters and streets as toilets.
No tent cities. You can setup at night, but it has to be down in the morning. You can’t have more than you can carry on your back or in your shopping cart. Clean up your trash or the city will do it for you. No more laws that prevent cities from cleaning up homeless camps or their belongings. If it’s been abandoned, clean it up.
I am sure these proposals and many others have been brought up. I am more interested in why they have not been acted upon. Which brings back to my point: there are other legal and political constraints we outsiders are not aware of.
The current reality is actually the equilibrium of what different fractions of people want. Nobody wants shelters in their neighborhoods, but most people also don’t want to lock people up in jail for a long period of time. Most say they want more housing, but they don’t want their sunlight being blocked either. End result of tugs of different forces is the current inaction. Somehow that’s the equilibrium. To move to another equilibrium you need a change of magnitude of some of these forces.
50 years of liberals Democrats trying the wrong ideas. Guilt,coddling, blaming society, decriminalizing drugs and petty crime. Letting the homeless do whatever feels good. None of it works. Let them move into the liberal elites back yards. Put tents in Newsoms garden.
Liberal tolerance is to blame. SF has a history of tolerance of depravity. From the Barbary Coast to Carol Doda, to leather bars, naked perverts and pooping on the street. All tolerated some even exalted. Hasn’t ended up well.
I doubt they’ve been brought up at all. I think elt1’s nailed it. Many of the lawmakers don’t want to enforce laws or get people off the street. I don’t know whether it’s a local law or state that says you have to pay for storage of homeless people’s stuff otherwise you can’t clean it up. The proposition that passed 4 years ago allowing people to go free unless they’ve committed 3 crimes (that one’s on the CA residents). Not forcing people to move the tents. It’s all the same crap–feel sorry for the perpetrator and pass idiotic laws saying no one can stop them.
The push to “defund the police” isn’t going to help. If that happens before things get cleared up, there won’t be the manpower to do enforce the laws.
It takes a lawsuit to make the city to do anything:
My SF agent called me today and suggested to wait a year before investing in SF again. He used to pester me to invest just a few months ago. He thinks bottom is nowhere in sight and without stimulus or serious policy changes, it will be down at least another 50% from here - first rents and then prices.
Nonetheless, he expects a huge wave of foreclosures starting from early 2021 and asked me to wait till then.
Exactly. Smart money is moving from RE to Stocks. SF RE has got every fundamental wrong - WFH, Exodus, Taxes, Filth, Unsafe, Crime, Shit homes aka pigeonholes. I think even after 50% correction it may still remain overpriced but would be good time to enter.
JPMorgan’s forecast for the U.S. economy improved slightly, but it still expects unemployment to remain above 7% for all of 2021.
With such statement, this correction is less than dot com burst and year 2008 burst. In addition, FED and USG pre-empted with unlimited funding for recovery.
IMO, we will not see 50% dip in stocks (I doubt), but healthy correction like 10% possible here and there.
If Trump comes back, we will not see any big dip as he is monster behind market economy. If Biden comes, potential chance for stocks to take a big dip as he is going to hit economy with huge tax burden.
True for stocks but in RE, specially overpriced ones like SF it’s gonna be very bad. At this price and growing tax and tenant regulation and rapidly falling income, they are a liability not asset and will remain so till there is at least 50% drop in price.
Mark my words or screen shot this update. Fifty Percent drop in SFBA real estate is in your dream and will not happen in next 5 years (until Dec 2025).
Like manch said, prices may go up every year 5%-7%.
I am assuming Trump is coming as president. Even if Biden comes, stock may sag, Real estate may sag, but not even 30% possible. My reference is median price home in SFBA location drop.
Mountain House competitive bidding 100K+ and my own friend sold his home 105k above list price recently, suggests me that SFBA RE drop is done by now.
Your dream can happen when at least one company (AAPL,GOOGL, FB, TSLA) files a bankruptcy !
Somewhat quoted from internal forum “hoping to get townhome in Sunnyvale. Asking 1.38M, sold for 1.43M and seller got 5 offers”. And a few people chiming in with their own frustrating experience with waiting prices to drop. But some saw the silver lining that they can negotiate the rent price down.
