4 ms·

> Heck, I'd love to live in those areas if my job didn't require me to be in downtown SF every day > If you can't afford to live in a certain level of housing

> Heck, I'd love to live in those areas if my job didn't require me to be in downtown SF every day > If you can't afford to live in a certain level of housing in a certain area at market prices, then you shouldn't live there, you should live somewhere cheaper. If the people companies want to hire can't afford to live within a reasonable distance then companies should pay more. If they can't pay more they should leave. Sounds self correcting, then. Someday it may reach a point where you won't be able to afford to live where you can commute to downtown SF and your company will either have to pay you more or you'll have to leave. There are a ton of externalities already priced into your rent. Not sure why you're singling out this one versus, say, the overwhelming source of high rents: lack of supply.

elgabogringo 10y ago
If it's self correcting then why does it not correct? If lack of supply is a problem, then restricting that supply by 10-15% is part of the problem.
- magicalist 10y ago
  > If it's self correcting then why does it not correct? It is. Due to government-mandated lack of supply, the market is working its magic to make you have to move to the east bay. > If lack of supply is a problem, then restricting that supply by 10-15% is part of the problem. Sure, and if taxes were cut 25% you'd save a lot of money too. You still haven't identified anything special about section 8 that is holding you back from your dreams of temporarily lower rent. What about proposition 13? What about insane zoning rules trying to preserve the "character" of generic suburban neighborhoods?