3 ms·
Define "good". I agree that the people in SF will be happier to be there (I'm someone moving out of SF because I feel like I can now, I moved there because I "
by nscalf 5y ago
Define "good". I agree that the people in SF will be happier to be there (I'm someone moving out of SF because I feel like I can now, I moved there because I "had to"). But this tradeoff includes a massive decrease in the tax base, and losing the security of knowing that they will have a growing tax base from the creation of new billion dollar tech companies. The tech people that the Bay Area loves to hate pay for a huge amount of what the government does, and we all know they're not efficient with that money.
Eventually the Bay Area will find a new equilibrium, but it won't look much like the current Bay Area does. I believe the Bay Area exists in it's current state because of the network effect of having this much tech money/talent in one place. If this goes away, what is left that outweighs high crime, drug abuse and homelessness, taxes, etc?
- yardie 5y agoYou make it sound SF was a basket case before tech arrived. It's a city literally created from the Gold Rush. And probably has seen more boom and bust than most cities. I assume SF will find a happy medium where part of the population isn't forced onto the streets by overwhelming capital.
- nscalf 5y agoI more so meant that taking away capital is a much more painful process than adding in capital. But you make a good point, it's not the first boom/bust the city has seen.