4 ms·

I’m back in SF after a few years away. I had developed some thoughts about the homelessness challenges that Reno was facing, but when I landed in SF/Oakland it

I’m back in SF after a few years away. I had developed some thoughts about the homelessness challenges that Reno was facing, but when I landed in SF/Oakland it was immediately overwhelming, occurring on such a different scale and with such visibility. I have no solid ideas of what “we need to do” but I know that in the European cities I frequent, it’s not like this. Other comments in this discussion touch on the social infrastructure that we’ve forsaken... the things that cost money, require continuity and depth in the community, and which... in other cultures, seem reasonable and required for their humans. That said, I wonder about what the infrastructure looks like that helps people months before they hit the homeless force functions. There’s a funnel in the descent of resources... the homelessness activists can’t fix the infrastructure of social support and the economic cliff son many people teeter on. I just spent a couple of months traveling, living in quarters not my own. Had a very minor health issue that was difficult to treat outside of my home base. It was inconvenient, then challenging, then debilitating, and ultimately pretty deflating. I had the resources to fix things, but if I had been financially constrained, my confidence and autonomy and self-esteem could have plummeted to hard-to-recover levels. I could feel how vulnerable other people probably would have been. And I know my friends in other countries would’ve shaken their head and muttered something about our system here in the US.

rthomas6 7y ago
When you consider that it costs over $3000/month for a single bedroom apartment, the local government prevents the building of high-rise buildings, and the climate is comfortable outdoors year-round, it makes sense. It will continue to be this way as long as high density low income apartment high rises are not allowed to be built in large numbers in west SF.
- asdfman123 7y ago
  I don't think this is a hot take, but if the market wants to build fancy apartments, let them build fancy apartments. The reason there aren't less fancy, affordable apartments is people weren't allowed to build new apartments 20 years ago, which would have aged into affordable housing this decade.
  - rthomas6 7y ago
    Sounds good to me. Just let developers build.
- axaxs 7y ago
  I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking. The price is what it is, and everyone knows what it is. How can I feel sorry for folks that live there and just shrug and say "can't afford it". It's one of the most expensive cities on Earth. There is so much land in the US, so many cities with reasonable cost of living, etc etc. It feels like instead of doing the logical thing, we're building some class of caviar homeless. We can't just dictate that because people want to live there, we must provide them cheap or free housing in popular coastal cities. Though the above does touch on what I think is really missing - a social safety net. I can see how high cost of living could lead to homelessness when you're trying to cling on after losing a job and can't find something to replace it right away. I fully believe we should help such folks, give them a safety net, just -not- in SF. There's tons of inland cities that are begging for people, let's solve two things at once. After they are back on their feet, if they want to move back - so be it.
  - netsharc 7y ago
    But SF hasn't always had these prices, what if someone was born there and has their "social network"? Do they have to fuck off when that VC-funded Node.js programmer show up? So they move to a cheaper place, try to rebuild their life, but what if that's the next hot town for Porsche-driving Saudi-funded bros? "Sorry poor man, you need to leave yet again!".
    - axaxs 7y ago
      It sounds harsh, but I'm not sure what the answer is. Think of it, if housing were completely free everywhere in the US, for everyone, most people would flock to the west coast. It has the best weather in the US, and San Diego in particular even the best in the world perhaps. You have an ocean nearby, rarely gets too hot or too cold, etc. The only way to prevent the absolute cluster-f that would be is with scarcity and thereby pricing. I don't live there, so I'm not being elitist...I'm being realistic. A major factor in why I don't live there is the cost. A rational person deals with such things, instead of shouting from the a tent in the street. Edit to add - I don't think the situation of 'keep moving' is realistic. Of all the thousands of cities in the US, only a handful have really had a price explosion, and the reasons are obvious - coastal, nice weather, and limited space. I can't see that ever happening in say, Olathe, or Tuscaloosa, etc. Austin for example has had an explosion, but generally has the room to grow outwards in a reasonable way in my opinion.

rthomas6 7y ago

When you consider that it costs over $3000/month for a single bedroom apartment, the local government prevents the building of high-rise buildings, and the climate is comfortable outdoors year-round, it makes sense. It will continue to be this way as long as high density low income apartment high rises are not allowed to be built in large numbers in west SF.

asdfman123 7y ago
I don't think this is a hot take, but if the market wants to build fancy apartments, let them build fancy apartments. The reason there aren't less fancy, affordable apartments is people weren't allowed to build new apartments 20 years ago, which would have aged into affordable housing this decade.
- rthomas6 7y ago
  Sounds good to me. Just let developers build.
axaxs 7y ago
I'm not sure I follow this line of thinking. The price is what it is, and everyone knows what it is. How can I feel sorry for folks that live there and just shrug and say "can't afford it". It's one of the most expensive cities on Earth. There is so much land in the US, so many cities with reasonable cost of living, etc etc. It feels like instead of doing the logical thing, we're building some class of caviar homeless. We can't just dictate that because people want to live there, we must provide them cheap or free housing in popular coastal cities. Though the above does touch on what I think is really missing - a social safety net. I can see how high cost of living could lead to homelessness when you're trying to cling on after losing a job and can't find something to replace it right away. I fully believe we should help such folks, give them a safety net, just -not- in SF. There's tons of inland cities that are begging for people, let's solve two things at once. After they are back on their feet, if they want to move back - so be it.
- netsharc 7y ago
  But SF hasn't always had these prices, what if someone was born there and has their "social network"? Do they have to fuck off when that VC-funded Node.js programmer show up? So they move to a cheaper place, try to rebuild their life, but what if that's the next hot town for Porsche-driving Saudi-funded bros? "Sorry poor man, you need to leave yet again!".
  - axaxs 7y ago
    It sounds harsh, but I'm not sure what the answer is. Think of it, if housing were completely free everywhere in the US, for everyone, most people would flock to the west coast. It has the best weather in the US, and San Diego in particular even the best in the world perhaps. You have an ocean nearby, rarely gets too hot or too cold, etc. The only way to prevent the absolute cluster-f that would be is with scarcity and thereby pricing. I don't live there, so I'm not being elitist...I'm being realistic. A major factor in why I don't live there is the cost. A rational person deals with such things, instead of shouting from the a tent in the street. Edit to add - I don't think the situation of 'keep moving' is realistic. Of all the thousands of cities in the US, only a handful have really had a price explosion, and the reasons are obvious - coastal, nice weather, and limited space. I can't see that ever happening in say, Olathe, or Tuscaloosa, etc. Austin for example has had an explosion, but generally has the room to grow outwards in a reasonable way in my opinion.