Every recession, bay are a gets jobless and population is getting reduced. This has happened in 2000, 2008 and 2020-21 also. Nothing new !
Presently, due to strategic operations costs, all tech jobs are getting laid off in bay area and hiring happens in Atlanta, Austin and India. Rest of the places, lay offs are going on.
Even if you closely look at US job hiring and US companies hiring in India, you will see India hiring will be five times higher than US hiring.
It does not mean, bay area is going to be doomed, does not mean India is going to be tech capital of world.
When jobless numbers improves, SFBA will again becomes more expensive than current level, either cost of living or real estate prices.
that they are slowly laying off. At least in HP case, my friend who works there said they are doing rolling layoffs, so to not trigger the reporting they have to do if they layoff above a certain #. Oracle is also known for constant “layoffs”
From the article, and I agree. The NIMBYs have made CA a hard place to live, and companies are responding to that.
“California has blown it, but not because of tax policy — its decadeslong problem of not producing enough housing,” he said. “It’s probably cheaper and easier to build that in Austin.”
I agree the NIMBY’ism is the biggest failure of California, but the sad truth is that it’s bipartisan. There is a burgeoning YIMBY movement that I am really hopeful for. Last week SF Chronicle published a really scathing report on the so-called progressives in SF that’s anything but.
It is hard not to sympathize with the nimbyies.
Since the mid sixties they have tried to keep growth in check. It is said without them the SFBA would have 14n people like LA. It is an unsolvable problem. But people will keep coming no matter hard they try or how bad progressives reign
Building 3 stories apartment buildings won’t turn SF into Manhattan, much less Hong Kong. People who keep babbling about preserving “characters of neighborhoods” just want to keep the good things to themselves. No matter how much lip service they pay to progressive ideals these people are the parasites of society.
You are just counting you dimes. You don’t understand or appreciate that NIMBYS have kept BA livable and from becoming a ghetto high density slum. We don’t need any more construction here.
Well SF is already overpopulated. Not sure if you understand what you are saying. Building more houses in an over populated region will only crowd it more. Homelessness is not due to lack of house but due to bad policy. We need more open and green space in SF and less traffic and people not more.
The YIMBY movement is gathering steam. Minneapolis and the entire state of Oregon have already eliminated SFH zoning. Sac is poised to follow suit. Soon it will be hard to justify SFH zoning in progressive circles.
Sacramento moves toward becoming one of 1st U.S. cities to eliminate single-family zoning
Bipartisan? Yeah, it’s all the republicans in SF that are blocking development projects. When was the last time republicans had a majority of the state legislature?
Added
“ In California, Democrats held trifecta control of state government from 1999 to 2003 and again from 2011 to present. During all other years, California operated under divided government”
It’s sort of like blaming republicans for American issues when democrats have dominated control of congress since 1932.
Nimby’s control the San Diego area too. One of their favorite arguments is they area is prone to wildfires. They cite evacuation plans a lot. When they don’t get their way, they collect signatures to put it on the ballot next election.
Both parties are against housing. That’s the very definition of bipartisanship.
There is a small but growing YIMBY fraction within the Dems. If all the R’s are pro-housing, they and the YIMBY fraction can push through statewide pro-housing legislation. That’s what I said. The problem is intractable now because both parties are NIMBY’s.
Nobody said it’s all or nothing. We can meet somewhere in the middle. Building 3 stories midrises doesn’t strike me as extreme.
If Sac succeeded in demolishing SFH zoning expect to see pressure mounts on Bay Area counties. Housing is increasingly seen on racial and income equity terms and young people are fed up with boomers hoarding all the land.
You don’t understand the development business. New construction is $300/sf in Sac $650/sf in Oakland $1000/sf in Sf. Nobody can afford these new construction plus land costs. . The problem is unsolvable. That means without massive government subsidies people will have to move to Indiana and other cheap shitholes. In term or rents that means &3000 in Sac
$6500 in Oakland and $10k in Sf for new housing rents. New construction solves nothing.
There are still new builds in SF. Bottleneck is approval and all the shit costs and legislations like parking space and BMR requirements. Don’t tell me there are no builders applying for permits in all of SF.
Only for luxury housing. Only math challenged liberals that believe Bitcoin exists think that new affordable housing is possible.
Example my subdivision in Cameron Park. Used homes selling for $300/sf. Land costs are $350k. Construction costs $300/sf. Entitlements architecture septic tank well road harrdscape and landscaping $200k. So it costs $1.5m for a new house. Existing 3500 sf homes sell for $1-1m. Therefore no one building new.
