Comment by bermanoid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bermanoid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Unfortunately this is mostly a zero-sum game: there's a very limited supply of housing in San Francisco, and it's always going to go to the highest bidder, which is the eternal gentrification struggle. Rich people deciding they're willing to pay more taxes won't help here, because it won't create more housing supply.

Even a direct redistribution scheme wouldn't do much, because the rich will still be able to outbid the poor for the scarce apartments. Short of rich people deciding they don't want to take that job in the Bay Area or government straight up banning them from moving there, I don't think there's much anyone can do to help prevent the poor from being displaced.

Getting SF to allow new construction would help a lot (there are probably thousands of developers that would love to build 100+ unit luxury complexes in the Mission), but at this point it seems that's something of a losing battle. Weirdly, it's the very people that are protesting the current influx of tech workers and rising rents that most viciously oppose new high-occupancy construction in the "true" SF neighborhoods because it would destroy their character, so it's a tough nut to crack.

I understand the supply limitations, but we have the same problem, because we have a ton of traction towards higher-up professionals. The big difference lies within the political system. The housing/real estate market is completely free (and cutthroat) here too, but our more socialist oriented government interacts with it to help people in need.

Examples of that are "sponsored" apartments, that cities rent to their owners for regular price, and subside to people but with an adaptive price (much lower for lower income people, and a little higher for people who make more than average)

In more urgent cases, social services cooperate with people who own unused buildings, hotels during low season, etc, and pay a big price to keep people under a roof.

There's also a lot of work from associations to communicate with landlords and agencies, trying to help giving a fair chance and renting affordable places to people with regular income, students, etc, as many wealthy people are interested in cheap places too.

I feel like the people who control most of the market have a lot of political power, and they don't want a bunch of buildings popping out and lowering market pressure, making prices and their revenue drop. Money is not a definitive solution, but in the right hands it can help a lot. In turn it creates a nicer social climate, and things work out better for everyone.

A nicer social climate isn't in everyone's interest though, and a lot of people work very hard to make sure there is tension, because they profit from it, a lot.

>Weirdly, it's the very people that are protesting the current influx of tech workers and rising rents that most viciously oppose new high-occupancy construction in the "true" SF neighborhoods because it would destroy their character, so it's a tough nut to crack.

That's really unfortunate, I'd hope that people would realize that you can have good-quality high-occupancy construction(see loads of places in Europe, Japan).

I don't necessarily know if it's a zero-sum game though. If higher quality mass transit were in place, the cost of living out of the city would be lessened (both in cost and stress).

I think it would be really cool if San Francisco built a subway line that went down south. It would convince people to not live exactly in the city center (because you'd have relatively easy access by subway), so could ease real estate preasures downtown, and would generally encourage a better spread of the population. It's not that people want to live downtown, but that they want to easily get downtown.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com