5 ms·

This blows, not so much because Stripe is leaving SF, but because it's going just over the border for tax purposes so 100% of employees who live in SF will stay

This blows, not so much because Stripe is leaving SF, but because it's going just over the border for tax purposes so 100% of employees who live in SF will stay in SF. The company just won't pay their fair share to the city to offset their impact. The line about this being about space and not taxes is hard to believe.[1] And for good reason. Last year Stripe funded an anti-homeless campaign just $1 shy of the reporting threshold, initially, until they were exposed.[2] That's not something you do if you're proud of sharing your true motivations. [1] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/affordable-housing-fee-hike-on-office-development-in-sf-advances-toward-approval/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/affordable-housing-fee-hike-... [2] https://missionlocal.org/2018/10/orgy-of-big-money-donations-flowing-into-prop-c-battle-both-for-and-against/ https://missionlocal.org/2018/10/orgy-of-big-money-donations...

ppf 7y ago
> The company just won't pay their fair share to the city to offset their impact. The company's impact on what?
JumpCrisscross 7y ago
> Last year Stripe funded an anti-homeless campaign just $1 shy of the reporting threshold I don’t get the sense that San Francisco’s homeless problem can be solved by throwing dollars at it. San Francisco chooses high housing prices by restricting construction. Its NIMBYs block tackling its homelessness problem. Money won’t change those choices by San Francisco’s voters. It will just swell another city bureaucracy.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  Both things can be true: NIMBYs are contributing to skyrocketing housing prices (and thus a growth in homelessness), AND essential city/county/state services require tax dollars. I can think of plenty of things that SF locals complain about when I talk to them that would be mitigated by more tax dollars spent by the appropriate agencies. If your argument is that SF local government is a black hole that spends 0% of its tax income on important programs, then that's another matter but requires a bit more support...
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > NIMBYs are contributing to skyrocketing housing prices (and thus a growth in homelessness), AND essential city/county/state services require tax dollars Until the NIMBYs are confronted, throwing money at the homeless problem, best case, randomly burns cash. (More likely, it enriches the politically connected i.e. those same NIMBYs.) You can’t build enough shelters, nor build them or staff them economically, without solving that problem. You can dance around the permanent population, but you run into the same issue with mental-health and drug clinics. The NIMBYism makes the whole enterprise less effective to the NIMBYs’ benefit. TL; DR This tax looks like another way for San Francisco to dodge confronting its landowning elite. (Note: this isn’t a broadside against local taxation. It’s a complaint about this specific tax. San Francisco’s root problem is it refuses to build.)
  - dominotw 7y ago
    > NIMBYs are contributing to skyrocketing housing prices (and thus a growth in homelessness) My impression was that the homeless there cannot afford a home at any price due to life circumstances.
    - seehafer 7y ago
      Yes but let’s assume we built free or nearly free housing. We can’t even do that in SF with any speed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- driverdan 7y ago
  Considering the city already spends around $30k per year per homeless person it's pretty obvious money is not the solution.
  - hellllllllooo 7y ago
    That number is a myth. An intentional butchering of the homeless stats and spending numbers for political purposes. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homeless-problem-not-going-away-7238304.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homel... The number is more like $3800 per person per year: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
    - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
      > That number is a myth The article [1] posits reasonable hypotheses for why the number might be lower, but doesn’t attempt to calculate it, ending with “math...always making things confusing.” San Francisco spends a lot on its homeless problem. (Using the article’s numbers, stripping out eviction prevention, about $200 million a year.) It has little to show for it. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homeless-problem-not-going-away-7238304.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homel...
      - hellllllllooo 7y ago
        > San Francisco spends a lot on its homeless problem with little to show for it. $241 million from a budget of over $12 billion from a city that with businesses that collectively make hundreds of billions every year. Doesn't seem like that much. Same as 1 SoftBank funded startup that inevitably wastes it. Little to show for it? The money is going to help people in a awful situation. Just because they haven't disappeared from the streets doesn't mean it's wasted. The number is more like $3800 per person per year. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
friedman23 7y ago
I'm happy for stripe, they made the logical decision.Now hopefully the incompetent administrators of San Francisco will feel some consequence for their actions.
driverdan 7y ago
Good. A gross receipts tax is absurd and businesses should move out of the city in protest.
nkohari 7y ago
> The company just won't pay their fair share to the city to offset their impact. I'm not sure what you mean by "offset their impact", but regardless, employees living in SF will still pay local taxes. [I'm a Stripe employee, but I'm remote from NC and speaking entirely for myself.]

ppf 7y ago

> The company just won't pay their fair share to the city to offset their impact. The company's impact on what?

JumpCrisscross 7y ago

> Last year Stripe funded an anti-homeless campaign just $1 shy of the reporting threshold I don’t get the sense that San Francisco’s homeless problem can be solved by throwing dollars at it. San Francisco chooses high housing prices by restricting construction. Its NIMBYs block tackling its homelessness problem. Money won’t change those choices by San Francisco’s voters. It will just swell another city bureaucracy.

kevingadd 7y ago
Both things can be true: NIMBYs are contributing to skyrocketing housing prices (and thus a growth in homelessness), AND essential city/county/state services require tax dollars. I can think of plenty of things that SF locals complain about when I talk to them that would be mitigated by more tax dollars spent by the appropriate agencies. If your argument is that SF local government is a black hole that spends 0% of its tax income on important programs, then that's another matter but requires a bit more support...
- JumpCrisscross 7y ago
  > NIMBYs are contributing to skyrocketing housing prices (and thus a growth in homelessness), AND essential city/county/state services require tax dollars Until the NIMBYs are confronted, throwing money at the homeless problem, best case, randomly burns cash. (More likely, it enriches the politically connected i.e. those same NIMBYs.) You can’t build enough shelters, nor build them or staff them economically, without solving that problem. You can dance around the permanent population, but you run into the same issue with mental-health and drug clinics. The NIMBYism makes the whole enterprise less effective to the NIMBYs’ benefit. TL; DR This tax looks like another way for San Francisco to dodge confronting its landowning elite. (Note: this isn’t a broadside against local taxation. It’s a complaint about this specific tax. San Francisco’s root problem is it refuses to build.)
- dominotw 7y ago
  > NIMBYs are contributing to skyrocketing housing prices (and thus a growth in homelessness) My impression was that the homeless there cannot afford a home at any price due to life circumstances.
  - seehafer 7y ago
    Yes but let’s assume we built free or nearly free housing. We can’t even do that in SF with any speed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
driverdan 7y ago
Considering the city already spends around $30k per year per homeless person it's pretty obvious money is not the solution.
- hellllllllooo 7y ago
  That number is a myth. An intentional butchering of the homeless stats and spending numbers for political purposes. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homeless-problem-not-going-away-7238304.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homel... The number is more like $3800 per person per year: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
  - JumpCrisscross 7y ago
    > That number is a myth The article [1] posits reasonable hypotheses for why the number might be lower, but doesn’t attempt to calculate it, ending with “math...always making things confusing.” San Francisco spends a lot on its homeless problem. (Using the article’s numbers, stripping out eviction prevention, about $200 million a year.) It has little to show for it. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homeless-problem-not-going-away-7238304.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Myths-like-homel...
    - hellllllllooo 7y ago
      > San Francisco spends a lot on its homeless problem with little to show for it. $241 million from a budget of over $12 billion from a city that with businesses that collectively make hundreds of billions every year. Doesn't seem like that much. Same as 1 SoftBank funded startup that inevitably wastes it. Little to show for it? The money is going to help people in a awful situation. Just because they haven't disappeared from the streets doesn't mean it's wasted. The number is more like $3800 per person per year. https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Businesses-must-contribute-more-to-city-s-13178743.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...

friedman23 7y ago

I'm happy for stripe, they made the logical decision.Now hopefully the incompetent administrators of San Francisco will feel some consequence for their actions.

driverdan 7y ago

Good. A gross receipts tax is absurd and businesses should move out of the city in protest.

nkohari 7y ago

> The company just won't pay their fair share to the city to offset their impact. I'm not sure what you mean by "offset their impact", but regardless, employees living in SF will still pay local taxes. [I'm a Stripe employee, but I'm remote from NC and speaking entirely for myself.]