3 ms·

More like we've got 100 people and 80 houses, but somehow 70 people aren't going to get a house one way or another. One of the large problems is people buying

More like we've got 100 people and 80 houses, but somehow 70 people aren't going to get a house one way or another. One of the large problems is people buying up second+ homes to rent out or AirBnB.

epistasis 9y ago
I don't think San Francisco has a bit problem here, all Airbnb units are registered with the city [1], and even before registration requirements, there were only ~11,000 units listed [2] in all of San Francisco, which is a tiny fraction. Vacancy rates are also extremely low in San Francisco: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ so investment properties being idle is also not a problem. The real problem is lack of supply to meet demand. A state law from the 1970s forces municipalities to produce Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA), and nobody in the Bay Area is close to meeting their planned housing needs ([3] Table 4.1) for moderate or lower incomes. Overall in California, 97% of cities failed to meet their own housing goals [4] (Please note that this source is highly pro-housing, so take it with a grain of salt. I am also very pro-housing but want to be open kimono about it). [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/technology/airbnb-san-francisco-settlement-agreement/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/technology/airbnb-san-franci... [2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-thousands-of-hosts-in-SF-as-12496624.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-th... [3] http://reports.abag.ca.gov/sotr/2015/section4-housing-goals-progress.php http://reports.abag.ca.gov/sotr/2015/section4-housing-goals-... [4] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-cities-failed-to-meet-state-housing-goals-and/article_a609ae5e-09d7-11e8-a94e-3b67baeaae8b.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-citi...
- hollandheese 9y ago
  Of course more housing needs to be build. In a sane manner, though, that focuses on the actual needs of the community rather than building more and more expensive condos than only the rich can afford. I wasn't talking about investment properties being idle. I was talking about them existing. They drive the rates up just by existing, since the owner wants to make more per month than they paid on it. If people weren't allowed to own more than one home, then all prices for housing would drop. Also 11,000 units is a good bit. Could house probably at least 10,000-20,000 more people if Airbnb was banned.

More like we've got 100 people and 80 houses, but somehow 70 people aren't going to get a house one way or another. One of the large problems is people buying up second+ homes to rent out or AirBnB.

epistasis 9y ago

I don't think San Francisco has a bit problem here, all Airbnb units are registered with the city [1], and even before registration requirements, there were only ~11,000 units listed [2] in all of San Francisco, which is a tiny fraction. Vacancy rates are also extremely low in San Francisco: http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ http://www.deptofnumbers.com/rent/california/san-francisco/ so investment properties being idle is also not a problem. The real problem is lack of supply to meet demand. A state law from the 1970s forces municipalities to produce Regional Housing Needs Assessments (RHNA), and nobody in the Bay Area is close to meeting their planned housing needs ([3] Table 4.1) for moderate or lower incomes. Overall in California, 97% of cities failed to meet their own housing goals [4] (Please note that this source is highly pro-housing, so take it with a grain of salt. I am also very pro-housing but want to be open kimono about it). [1] http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/technology/airbnb-san-francisco-settlement-agreement/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/01/technology/airbnb-san-franci... [2] https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-thousands-of-hosts-in-SF-as-12496624.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Airbnb-loses-th... [3] http://reports.abag.ca.gov/sotr/2015/section4-housing-goals-progress.php http://reports.abag.ca.gov/sotr/2015/section4-housing-goals-... [4] https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-cities-failed-to-meet-state-housing-goals-and/article_a609ae5e-09d7-11e8-a94e-3b67baeaae8b.html https://www.thebaycitybeacon.com/politics/of-california-citi...

hollandheese 9y ago
Of course more housing needs to be build. In a sane manner, though, that focuses on the actual needs of the community rather than building more and more expensive condos than only the rich can afford. I wasn't talking about investment properties being idle. I was talking about them existing. They drive the rates up just by existing, since the owner wants to make more per month than they paid on it. If people weren't allowed to own more than one home, then all prices for housing would drop. Also 11,000 units is a good bit. Could house probably at least 10,000-20,000 more people if Airbnb was banned.