4 ms·
> I do have to add the caveat that it's mostly bad, but not _all_ bad: some of my favorite spots in town would have almost certainly had to evacuate the city by
by bufordsharkley 10y ago
> I do have to add the caveat that it's mostly bad, but not _all_ bad: some of my favorite spots in town would have almost certainly had to evacuate the city by now if they weren't grandfathered into a certain tax rate (usually cafes/restaurants/bars).
This is certainly true-- it does create its share of "hidden treasures," but I find that for every favorite business that sticks around because it owns its property, I see two favorite businesses that close because they rent.
- brandur 10y ago> This is certainly true-- it does create its share of "hidden treasures," but I find that for every favorite business that sticks around because it owns its property, I see two favorite businesses that close because they rent. Agreed. Unfortunately it's a case where the lucky [1] survived. Even in the few years that I've been in SF I've seen a lot of amazing places disappear. [1] I use "lucky" because no one 30-40 years ago could have predicted the disproportionate lucrativity that real estate would have compared to any other class of investment. It wasn't all that unreasonable to rent at the time.
- ec109685 10y ago60k in 1979 is worth 2.8M if it had been invested in the stock market. While you can't live in your stocks, you likely do get some amounts of dividends.