http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/
This is probably he most important social issue for
the area. It's strange that SF has a proud history of inclusion (and a
pretty good record in overall today), but this housing crisis is driven
by exclusion and privilege, not necessarily "normal economics."
-----
Well if you average the entire Bay Area, places like Brentwood and
Antioch will bring down the average. But SF is #3 priciest per sq. ft.
in the US behind NYC and HNL. Versus the whole world, SF is not that
bad, but real estate is really messed up in older, more cramped cities
in the EU and Asia.
http://curbed.com/archives/
It's not even about rent vs. own. Renting is very pricey too, obviously. I think one aspect of the problem is that landlords are taking rent-controlled (or regular) units off the market in order to convert them to TIC/condos for more $, or sell the whole bldg to speculators because there is no much insane pent-up demand and high willingness to pay from the upper classes. So rental supply is going down, which causes rents to rise too.
http://curbed.com/archives/
It's not even about rent vs. own. Renting is very pricey too, obviously. I think one aspect of the problem is that landlords are taking rent-controlled (or regular) units off the market in order to convert them to TIC/condos for more $, or sell the whole bldg to speculators because there is no much insane pent-up demand and high willingness to pay from the upper classes. So rental supply is going down, which causes rents to rise too.
----
If you hit Wikipedia for median income by city in ca you'll find that
those areas are also quite rich. Housing doesn't happen in a vacuum.
More a function of income and the real problem is income inequality
It also happens with respect to density. The more houses/apartments
available = the cheaper the rent. Nimbys in the Bay Area would like to
still have their .5 acre ranch houses on some of the most valuable land
on earth, meaning that the poors have to live 2 hours commute from their
jobs.
-----
Totally agree. The social justice element also comes into play
that historically lower income, blue collar, often minority
neighborhoods (Mission, Castro, etc.) used to be less desirable for
yuppies and therefore more affordable and off the radar of speculators.
But now they are hipster paradises, and with gentrification, the
"traditional residents" can't even maintain their old lives and are
priced out of the market. I guess that is like economic eminent domain.
Measures like rent control or mandated affordable housing are often economically inefficient and flawed (because they are written and implemented by flawed bureaucrats, like healthcare.gov), but sometime optimal economics must take a back seat to concerns about fairness and social values (see taxes, labor laws). I'd rather have confusing rent control laws and too high minimum wage than a total lack of regulation (at least imperfect laws are a springboard for iteration and improvement). Because as you said, with the huge inequality gap, what is the point for the poorest 60% to struggle so hard trying to fit into the rich man's world (yet not really be allowed to live in the rich man's world... I guess like the "Elysium" plot, which I did not see)? Most people with a shred of heart would probably agree that there is something inherently unjust with greedy politicians/companies and wealthy invaders "annexing" and developing suddenly desirable land, which leads to the economic eviction of the residents who were there before (through legal market mechanisms and the landlords/property owners). Pardon my melodrama, but it's scarily similar to the Trail of Tears.
I heard an interview about the subject a while back, and one
new SF resident and tech employee said something like, "Assholes (his
word) like me can afford $3K/1BR rent and are making it hard on the
previous residents, but hey, I want to live here." At least he had clear
eyes. It's just sad because everyone has one life to live, and we don't
want to compromise or suffer if we don't have to - even at cost to
others (esp. when others' suffering at our hands is mostly invisible).
Sorry for stereotyping, but I think the Gen X-ers and Millennials
especially (present company excluded) really fixate on what I like to
call "life maximization." Similar to their work habits of optimizing,
achieving, and disrupting everything, in life they want it their way and
they want it all. Best job, best home, best network, best gear, best
marathon time, best family... best, best, best. When that is not really
the goal but the status quo expectation in SF/Si Valley (when excellent
becomes average/normal, what do all the sub-excellent people do?), then
that doesn't really encourage a culture of togetherness and SHARING. We
don't need the best life... can't we just enjoy our regular life? Isn't
enough enough? Can I give a little up and still live a plenty comfy life
so that more needy people can get a break? People don't ask these
questions of themselves enough (myself included). Measures like rent control or mandated affordable housing are often economically inefficient and flawed (because they are written and implemented by flawed bureaucrats, like healthcare.gov), but sometime optimal economics must take a back seat to concerns about fairness and social values (see taxes, labor laws). I'd rather have confusing rent control laws and too high minimum wage than a total lack of regulation (at least imperfect laws are a springboard for iteration and improvement). Because as you said, with the huge inequality gap, what is the point for the poorest 60% to struggle so hard trying to fit into the rich man's world (yet not really be allowed to live in the rich man's world... I guess like the "Elysium" plot, which I did not see)? Most people with a shred of heart would probably agree that there is something inherently unjust with greedy politicians/companies and wealthy invaders "annexing" and developing suddenly desirable land, which leads to the economic eviction of the residents who were there before (through legal market mechanisms and the landlords/property owners). Pardon my melodrama, but it's scarily similar to the Trail of Tears.
Sharing is the key I think. This isn't my world, it's our world. There is PLENTY of food, money, and room for everyone if we share reasonably, but the problem is the fucking 1% and the institutions who advocate for them just don't want to (and don't have to). Americans and some other cultures really fixate on fencing off what's yours and amassing/diving the pie, so that breeds an adversarial, zero-sum attitude that conservatives really eat up. Therefore, it's especially sad when educated, young, open-minded "liberal" West Coast people do the same and may not even realize it. At least liberals don't bad-mouth and hate the people they marginalize, but that doesn't leave them in the clear (myself included).
-----
Sorry I realize that I was unclear about one point in my last rant (unclear about at least one point, haha).
The
Google buses are often scapegoats but not really the problem. By no
means am I placing the bulk of the blame on the young, techie hipsters
invading the Bay. They are not really the 1% and not the real driver of
the problem, they are just a "symptom". Except for Zuck who bought a
whole block of SF for privacy haha.
As A alluded to, we are not in the '50s Levittowns
anymore, or not even in the '90s nouveau-riche gated golf communities.
But the assholes want to keep us in the past, because they like the
status and lifestyle they have, and don't want to give up even a shred
to others. The city of Paris (and many other ancient cities) is like a
10-layer cake. New generations tear down the old crap that isn't working
anymore and rebuild to fit the needs of the current people. We aren't
really doing that, because the old fossils control the bulldozers. So
all we have is SF Elysium vs. Vallejo.
http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/
http://www.npr.org/templates/
-----
i once heard someone say cities are either places to live or places
people come to make money. he was talking about SF and that we were at a
crossroads. it was when matt gonzalez was running for mayor against
gavin Newsome. The speaker was making the case that if Newsome wins,
the city will lose its soul, it's artist community, it's diversity of
culture and class. that's what you're looking at here….plain and
simple. and, you know what? the city sucks now. It's filled with
people who are in a hurry, who lay on their horns, who yell.
No comments:
Post a Comment