11 ms·

Do they ignore it, or are they using it for their own gain? For people who actually own property in San Fransisco, consider how enriched they have become by the

Do they ignore it, or are they using it for their own gain? For people who actually own property in San Fransisco, consider how enriched they have become by the obscenely rising rent/real estate prices. This comes along with them getting to keep their neighborhoods static instead of having to have a gigantic shadow erected across the street. Sure there are downsides, but you can always just sell and get our with a pretty sweet paycheck before those come to bite you.

metalliqaz 6y ago
i imagine the people fighting hardest are the people who bought in /after/ the rents went up to absurd prices, and thus didn't profit hugely but will take a hit if the prices fall. (see taxi medallion investors in NYC)
- whakim 6y ago
  In my experience (which is admitttedly mostly anecdotal, but comes from having attended a number of public forums/planning meetings etc.) another huge group of people fighting hard against new development are the ultra-left wing of SF local politics. These people aren't against new housing per se, they are just rabidly anti-developer. They spend so much time delaying projects by trying to get developers to increase the amount of below-market rate housing in their new developments that the developer eventually just gives up because the whole process takes so long and the potential profits dwindle down to nothing.
SllX 6y ago
Both. I spent the last decade having these conversations with people who also grew up here and can’t afford to remain here without staying with their parents, with some of the stranger conversations devolving into my counter parties brainstorming ways to kick tech people out of the City and stop new people from moving in altogether, as if freedom of movement in the United States wasn’t really a thing. It’s not “supply and demand”, it’s “selfish rich techies and landlords”. I mean you can read that as supply and demand restated, until you get to next steps like solving the supply problem, and apparently building one more apartment building will irrevocably ruin the character of the City.
- FreakyT 6y ago
  Exactly -- there's a pervasive belief in the bay area that high rents are solely due to the evil cabal of landlords who meet every week in a dimly lit room and agree to charge sky-high rents while cackling maniacally and twirling their perfectly-waxed moustaches. The sudden COVID-related rent price drop indicates that this theory is nonsense, and that the high rents are solely a function of supply and demand, but I'm sure that won't stop anyone from believing in it.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    I’m not sure why, but a surprising number of people seem to have convinced themselves that supply and demand doesn’t apply to housing.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      I think most people doubt supply and demand to some degree. How often have you seen someone argue we should secure the supply of food to disaster zones by repealing price gouging laws? Rent control is popular because many people believe, wrongly but wholeheartedly, that landlords are just price gougers and everyone could get cheap adequate housing if they weren’t manipulating it.
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        My opinion is that rent control is much less about actually controlling rent, and more about controlling who is allowed to be in the city and where. Most rent control systems I’ve seen strongly favor those who have been in their current apartment for a long time, as moving often resets the rents back to market rate. And while that does help avoid evicting long time (and old) tenants, it also has the effect of forcing everyone on rent control to stay where they are. I mentally couple the way that rent control works with the pretty common opinion that the city was great until “they” came, and would be excellent again if they’d just leave. While the “they” changes from place to place and time to time, the attitude seems to be pretty common. You even see this attitude here on HN, with occasional assertions that those who moved there for tech jobs should move and let rents fall for those who have always been there.
kelnos 6y ago
I rented in SF for the past 10 years, and bought earlier this year. I don't look at my primary home as an investment; it's me paying to live in a place I love. Obviously I'd prefer that my mortgage not end up underwater, and a capital loss when I eventually sell wouldn't be awesome, but that would be a small price for me to pay for housing in this city to become more affordable for lots of people. But I'm extremely lucky that my financial situation is such that my home is not the bulk of my net worth. For most homeowners in the US, their home is not only the vast majority of their net worth, but it's the basis for their retirement nest egg (with the intention being to sell in retirement and trade down to a smaller home, keeping the difference in cash value). So while it grates on me, I can absolutely understand how homeowners will do everything in their power to not only protect their home values, but ensure they keep going up, year after year. At the same time, though, it does feel a little greedy to see people who bought 20-30 years ago holding on to their obscene hundreds (thousands?) of a percent gains so jealously, to the detriment of so many others. But again... it's hard to blame them too much, considering how uncertain retirement finances can be in the US. Solving that problem decisively with a housing windfall is an attractive proposition. I imagine there are some truly awful people who are very rich and continue to push policies that keep their home values high, even when they don't really need them to stay high to support their lifestyles. But I expect that's a small minority of people, if only because few people are that financially secure.

metalliqaz 6y ago

i imagine the people fighting hardest are the people who bought in /after/ the rents went up to absurd prices, and thus didn't profit hugely but will take a hit if the prices fall. (see taxi medallion investors in NYC)

whakim 6y ago
In my experience (which is admitttedly mostly anecdotal, but comes from having attended a number of public forums/planning meetings etc.) another huge group of people fighting hard against new development are the ultra-left wing of SF local politics. These people aren't against new housing per se, they are just rabidly anti-developer. They spend so much time delaying projects by trying to get developers to increase the amount of below-market rate housing in their new developments that the developer eventually just gives up because the whole process takes so long and the potential profits dwindle down to nothing.

SllX 6y ago

Both. I spent the last decade having these conversations with people who also grew up here and can’t afford to remain here without staying with their parents, with some of the stranger conversations devolving into my counter parties brainstorming ways to kick tech people out of the City and stop new people from moving in altogether, as if freedom of movement in the United States wasn’t really a thing. It’s not “supply and demand”, it’s “selfish rich techies and landlords”. I mean you can read that as supply and demand restated, until you get to next steps like solving the supply problem, and apparently building one more apartment building will irrevocably ruin the character of the City.

FreakyT 6y ago
Exactly -- there's a pervasive belief in the bay area that high rents are solely due to the evil cabal of landlords who meet every week in a dimly lit room and agree to charge sky-high rents while cackling maniacally and twirling their perfectly-waxed moustaches. The sudden COVID-related rent price drop indicates that this theory is nonsense, and that the high rents are solely a function of supply and demand, but I'm sure that won't stop anyone from believing in it.
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  I’m not sure why, but a surprising number of people seem to have convinced themselves that supply and demand doesn’t apply to housing.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    I think most people doubt supply and demand to some degree. How often have you seen someone argue we should secure the supply of food to disaster zones by repealing price gouging laws? Rent control is popular because many people believe, wrongly but wholeheartedly, that landlords are just price gougers and everyone could get cheap adequate housing if they weren’t manipulating it.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      My opinion is that rent control is much less about actually controlling rent, and more about controlling who is allowed to be in the city and where. Most rent control systems I’ve seen strongly favor those who have been in their current apartment for a long time, as moving often resets the rents back to market rate. And while that does help avoid evicting long time (and old) tenants, it also has the effect of forcing everyone on rent control to stay where they are. I mentally couple the way that rent control works with the pretty common opinion that the city was great until “they” came, and would be excellent again if they’d just leave. While the “they” changes from place to place and time to time, the attitude seems to be pretty common. You even see this attitude here on HN, with occasional assertions that those who moved there for tech jobs should move and let rents fall for those who have always been there.

kelnos 6y ago

I rented in SF for the past 10 years, and bought earlier this year. I don't look at my primary home as an investment; it's me paying to live in a place I love. Obviously I'd prefer that my mortgage not end up underwater, and a capital loss when I eventually sell wouldn't be awesome, but that would be a small price for me to pay for housing in this city to become more affordable for lots of people. But I'm extremely lucky that my financial situation is such that my home is not the bulk of my net worth. For most homeowners in the US, their home is not only the vast majority of their net worth, but it's the basis for their retirement nest egg (with the intention being to sell in retirement and trade down to a smaller home, keeping the difference in cash value). So while it grates on me, I can absolutely understand how homeowners will do everything in their power to not only protect their home values, but ensure they keep going up, year after year. At the same time, though, it does feel a little greedy to see people who bought 20-30 years ago holding on to their obscene hundreds (thousands?) of a percent gains so jealously, to the detriment of so many others. But again... it's hard to blame them too much, considering how uncertain retirement finances can be in the US. Solving that problem decisively with a housing windfall is an attractive proposition. I imagine there are some truly awful people who are very rich and continue to push policies that keep their home values high, even when they don't really need them to stay high to support their lifestyles. But I expect that's a small minority of people, if only because few people are that financially secure.