All the rhetoric and oddly empowering blame game to the tech industry (at least for us tech people) is merely trendy.
The only thing that stopped keeping up are salary increases.
"Unfortunately" the area has been a source of economic growth for the last century as well. So you need two things for high housing price growth: 1) factors that restrict housing supply from responding to the market 2) economic growth or some other factor to make people want to move to the city.
For the NIMBYs, they are ok with #1. They desire that their city stays the same, it has the same architecture, unblocked vistas, the density they are used to, the natives they know.
So the NIMBYs argue to those affected by high housing costs that #2 is the real factor, i.e. "if rich people stopped moving here we would be ok". #2 is the easier argument to make, as it casts the narrative as outsiders vs natives. #1 appeals to the existing natives since they don't want change.
We have to figure out a way to change the message to awareness of #1. The average Bay Area resident has no idea how many of our state and local laws are in place to make sure that market rents / housing prices can be as high as possible.
... which is a totally reasonable, perfectly rational position. Further, it is a policy regime that has been achieved democratically.
Personally, I am very much in favor of infill. There is a lot of crappy two story housing stock in san francisco that has no charm and no aesthetic value and would lend itself perfectly to at least doubling of density.
But let's not talk about the opponents of this as if they are flat-earthers or white supremacists or something - their stance is just as reasonable as any other socio-economic-political view.
You have small cities dying all over the country side because it becomes difficult to justify paying for general amenities like hospital, schools, ... and cities where you quickly hit the limit of high density too. You can replace a suburban sprawl by high density block of flat, but you need to upgrade the infrastructure to support it massively and the cost does not scale linearly past a point.
Seems to me there is a sweet spot there in the middle where the cost of public infrastructure is effective, a variety of living style at various price points, and there is still enough people for modern service to be cost effective. A bit like Europe if you get rid of the top 3-4 largest cities in each country.
If there is something that is prime for disruption, here you have it: this is a problem everywhere in the world, this is a problem that is solved the old non technological way, but with an already proven way to solve the problem using technology. The only bit that is missing is the proper incentive and a well balanced set of already existing technologies thrown in to make up for the major incentive of moving in a large city: the jobs are all packed in there too.
It is not a problem unique to SF, it just shows its worst there because its the highest growth.
While I agree with you on the whole "tech blame game", the quoted statement makes no sense. Of course housing prices mirrored salary increases previously. That's a natural phenomenon. As you know, this is a supply issue being mistaken by the rebellious barista set as a demand issue.
What's wrong with your overall summation of the situation is that the housing crisis is -- like most things that go systemically wrong in economics and public policy -- a product of multiple sources of causation, acting in concert.
That's why you can't (meaningfully) just say, "See, there's this other favor X [lack of middle class salary increases] at play. Therefore this factor Y everyone keeps talking about [high-salaried tech workers pouring into town] can't be the major factor. In fact, it's merely trendy."
Because in reality the housing crisis is a product of X, Y, Z, and a host of other factors acting in concert.
The CA housing market, if nothing else, gives newspapers something to chat about on slow news days.
Those prices don't show up on most historical charts because there were very few sales overall, and of course most sales were at the very high-end which are typically much more inelastic price-wise.
Most of the market was exceptionally illiquid, which is why many of those listings were so slow. Alot of renovations and new construction that had just come onto the market were discounted to fire sale prices, dragging other listings with them, and _still_ didn't sell until a year or two later. Banks simply weren't making loans, and the all-cash buyers weren't around either because the stock market had tanked.
The market rebounded much faster here than elsewhere. But, still, if you actually had hard cash at the time, and an appetite for risk (nobody knew if and when things would rebound) you could have made a killing. Some people did.
That's a pretty big only.
That's by no means comprehensive, but I'd just suggest a) more sources and b) a more holistic look at the issue than housing prices.
SF housing has averaged 6.6% yoy increases for the last 70 years.
The city is young and reasonably liberal and strikes a fine balance between urban living and outdoor activities. Our live music scene is also the best in the nation.
There is no state income tax either, so with an annual income of $75k, you will save $4k a year compared to California. Sales tax is also lower by a percent or two.
Of course, they don't have the "cool" factor of SFO or NYC etc.
It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
Source: lifelong Midwesterner, lived in four Midwestern states.
Maybe Denver ?
Colorado has relatively low tax rates and Denver is sort-of-kind-of-almost a real, functional big city downtown.
If you're at all inclined towards weekend-outdoorsy things, it might be a good choice.
Personally, if I had to choose a city besides San Francisco (where I live) I would choose Minneapolis, but it's not for everyone (and MN taxes are relatively high).
The theater district is (I am told) the largest outside of NYC (although I'm not sure by what metric). Regional theater is pretty big here as well if you want to see stuff outside Broadway, etc.
There are many concerts in the city, but Columbus and Pittsburgh are both reasonable drives and get a lot of concerts. Several of the venues (The Grog Shop, Aurora, Beachland Ballroom) get up and coming acts and musicians from large bands doing solo projects, often for low prices as well.
Housing is affordable, for the most part, although downtown housing is close to capacity at the moment due to lots of young people moving downtown. Outside of downtown, I am a fan of both Lakewood (westside, cheaper) and Shaker Heights (eastside, more expensive), both of which have access to light rail to downtown. Some of the cheaper suburbs are mostly 1960s housing stock, built in the era of GI mortgages, so they look kind of same-y, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are also parts of the area (like East Cleveland), which are probably undesirable to live in.
Cleveland offers a decent amount of outdoor activity as well. Obviously, the lake and river are available for many different outdoors activities (Kayaking, Canoeing, Jet Skis, swimming, boating) and there are several beaches. The metro parks system has parks around the outskirts of the entire city. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a short drive south. You are within driving distance of Wayne National Forest, Hocking Hills, and Allegheny National Forest. Many other outdoors areas in eastern PA are within a reasonable drive.
I'm not sure I agree w.r.t. taxes paying for parks and libraries. I enjoy both of those things and think they are valuable. Additionally, Cleveland (and Ohio in general) has a pretty great library system. Living in Cleveland, you have access to every Cleveland and suburb library (via ClevNet) and the Cuyahoga County Public Library, including eBooks and Audio Books. You also can order books from any Ohio Library via OhioLink.
Taxes are a problem, I think, with Cleveland. The city and most of the suburbs have a local income tax (between 1 and 2% flat rate usually) and the state of the roads and public transit does not seem to reflect the tax rate (although some areas are better than others). Sales tax is the highest in the state at 8% (compared to 7% elsewhere in OH), although food is tax-free. It is lower than Chicago (10.25%) and higher than Pittsburgh (6%).
Love reading posts of old articles from the 80s and 90s. It's like nothing much has changed over the past 30 or so years. Except the average housing price has gone up from ~$100,000 to ~$1,000,000 (you know, cuz of inflation and stuff...)
*edit spelling
And yet it's still in the bottom 2% of U.S. cities when ranked by crime.
I haven't received it yet but it seems promising
It started turning around in the 90s, culturally (I remember commentaries on shows like "Friends", that an urban ideal was emerging, at least among young adults). This wasn't a brand new thing by any means, but preferring an urban environment started to make its way back into the mainstream again. And now, interestingly, it's full throttle once again, but this time, it's people trying to cram into cities rather than fleeing them. Rather than talking about "getting out" of SF, people talk about being "priced out" of San Francisco and NY and regrettably feeling forced to move to the suburbs. I'm not sure how much of this is really sincere - I live south of 280 in SF, and a lot of people who say they were priced out would turn their nose up at my neighborhood. But still, I don't think this kind of talk was as common in the early 80s.
On another note - I felt New York was worse than SF, in terms of blight, in the early 90s when I lived there. Growing up in SF had certainly prepared me for the homelessness and aggressive panhandling, but it was heavier in NY. This may of course just reflect the neighborhoods I was in, but in NY, people asking for chance would follow me for blocks, negotiating (do you have subway tokens? I take subway tokens!) I was frequently approached for spare change in bars and restaurants (once, I dropped some money while paying for my coffee, a homeless man in NY jumped up to collect it for me, then held onto it as he entered negotiations for how much he would keep - possession being 9/10ths of the law, I guess).
I went back to NY recently, after 20 years away, and my perception is that you're experience far less of this sort of thing in NY than SF now. Certainly, there were still homeless people in NY, but the aggression I'd experienced earlier really wasn't nearly as notable. In SF, I'd say it's gotten steadily heavier, more aggressive. Not sure why.
But is this a real problem? Different areas are good for different types of people. If you want to have children, move to somewhere you can have a proper backyard, because leaving your kids indoors all day will send both you and them crazy.
But this isn’t so.
Just because it's been said before doesn't make it untrue. San Francisco is in fact not an easy or great place for those with children but not wealth.
I think what makes San Francisco a target is that it isn't a great place for those without children who would be classified as wealthy in any other part of the country.
You can probably find a path to home ownership in a safe neighborhood with decent services in any city in the country if you are in the upper quartile of incomes for that area.
The housing prices in San Francisco are such that most incomes even in the upper quartile would take a decade to save for a downpayment. You need two incomes (Two working parents) in the upper quartile of incomes in the area to get you to home ownership in a good neighborhood.
I don't follow.
As you said yourself, in most places in the U.S., a middle or upper-middle class family can afford to live in a home big enough for a family (which by global standards, is likely big enough for two or three families). And the home's in a safe neighborhood. What prevents this scenario from being great?
Originally meant for LA, but oddly applicable.
Fuck that Mark Zuckerberg and Fuck all his clones. Fuck all these swag-toting Hip coder wannabes.
Learn to swim.
Fuck retro anything. Fuck your tattoos. Fuck all you junkies and Fuck your short memory.
Learn to swim.
Fuck those recruiters With hidden agendas. Fuck these dysfunctional, Insecure activists.
>in 1970 the number of Hispanics was arrived at by a computer model that listed everyone with a Spanish surname as Hispanic
because census in 1970 did not allow differentiation Hispanics. It also probably means that decrease in whites from 70's to 80's is overstated.
This issue affects so many wicked problems, including how social systems respond to human-made environmental devastation.
Thankfully there are some leaders who will do the hard thing.
