CA democrat supermajority has killed it !
1 Like
I hope the lawmakers will surprise me with a yes vote. The only way to get out of the housing crunch is by building more. Those pro-tenant groups are morons.
Some updates to the original article.
Rent control is a massive subsidy of old rich mainly white tenants that will never move. Why don’t free market advocates point this out. The left loves to accuse its opponents as racist. Funny conundrum.
Just another erosion of property owner rights.
These numbers never bother tenant activists. They probably think it’s the way it’s supposed to be.
1 Like
One should never landlord in San Francisco. I thought that’s obvious even 10 years ago. I knew that even before I bought my first house.
Every environment is conductive to certain types of businesses and hostile to some others. Go with the flow. Don’t fight it.
The myth of affordable housing is BS. There is market rate housing and subsidized housing. None of it is affordable. The only affordable multi family housing is fifty year old housing in the exburbs or in other states. new sfhs aren’t affordable anywhere in CA anymore except for the very wealthy. As long as there is this myth that somehow people deserve new housing because they belong in some exalted group there will be no housing built.
1 Like
Add another qualifier. Near job centers, great neighborhoods and outstanding schools.
1 Like
The other misconception is the building codes are minimum standards. 1960 codes are in effect for the majority of existing housing. Why not roll back standards to that era to make housing more affordable for the poor. Most of of us live in 1960s housing or earlier anyway. Why should subsidized housing have a higher standard?
Bringing codes back to 1960s standards could cut the cost of housing in half.
The other option is manufactured or mobile homes. Cost one third of code required housing in CA cities. Only allowed in rural areas or trailer parks. A permanent foundation can add $50-100k in costs and isnot needed.
1 Like
When Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey told investors this week that he’s planning for a future with a more distributed workforce, his Bay Area peers could easily relate.
San Francisco, while always posing a unique set of challenges, has become an unmanageable place for many companies as they look to expand. It commands the highest salaries of any U.S. city and has some of the most expensive real estate, both commercial and residential. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of nearby companies, including the most valuable in the world, ready to poach your top developers and sales reps.
But with cloud infrastructure, faster internet speeds in more remote areas and a new generation of communications and collaboration tools, more companies are finding it advantageous to hire elsewhere.
@manch
The trend towards distributed workforce is gathering steam. You can call it Apple Campus, Amazon 2nd HQ, … or any fancy names. Companies are now going to where the people are, not requiring them to come all the way to SFBA. Is a matter of time, startups will do likewise sometime in the future. At present, there are still financial reason other than tech reason to be in SFBA.
1 Like
Bay Area has a capacity issue, mostly on housing. It makes sense to use the overflow rooms like Austin to place the less critical part of business.
That’s been happening for decades. Why are you treating this like it’s a new phenomenon? The tradeoff is that a diverse team is less efficient and can only deal with preset and well defined tasks. Ask anyone who has to deal with far flung spread out teams at work. So mostly well established, older companies operate that way. Most startups don’t.
I was worried about twitter when I read those two paragraphs. Only loser companies bitch about costs. So I read that article. Turns out Jack didn’t say any of those things. It’s the journalist’s opinion. Otherwise twitter is in big trouble.
Their stock is not performing that great, but slowly recovering. Don’t do those new age bullshit. Just keep executing, jack.
