7 ms·

I'm still absolutely furious that SF managed the boom times by handing over massive amounts of cash to landlords and property owners, by restricting constructio

I'm still absolutely furious that SF managed the boom times by handing over massive amounts of cash to landlords and property owners, by restricting construction, that came directly out of the pockets of workers and has resulted in massive displacement. Sure, the tax revenue looked great, but it happened in a way that caused great human suffering by making occupancy in the city zero sum, and awarding it to only those who had the most money to pay. That's not how it had to be, and choosing a zero-sum economic system rather than positive sum was foolish, and only meant to appease those with conservative views on construction. And by basing tax revenues on the business cycle, SF is now at such great risk, with huge social spending needed to repair the damage it inflicted with this unnecessary zero-sum system. Sadly, those who will be hurt the most by a potential downturn are not those who benefited by setting up a bad system. A downturn will help nearly no one, and cause great suffering. I feel a little sick in my stomach when I hear some hoping for a downturn, either as a chance for them to finally buy real estate, or as a chance for S.F. to be made great again by returning to some imagined past. Both of these are very unlikely, especially the second.

0xFACEFEED 4y ago
Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one pro of staying here was Prop 13 in California. We plan to retire in this home and figured Prop 13 will help make our post-retirement living expenses negligible. I only recently had the realization that Prop 13 could cause some serious problems like cities being incentivized to encourage resident "turnover" because new residents would be subject to current level property taxes. Another issue is cities having to rely more on sales taxes which discourages building residential housing and encourages building of commercial properties. Also when a recession hits then the cities are hit even harder because they aren't able to collect those sales taxes. We found that Bay Area schools are begging for money constantly and theorized that very low property tax income is a big part of that too. I mean... I like paying less but something about it feels wrong. Property taxes are a big source of income are they not?
- Aloha 4y ago
  Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Some of these are gonna spark controversy but term limits, the recall and ease of passing propositions are some of the other ones. The legislature is no longer professional enough to govern, so the people do it at the ballot box, at the behest of whom ever has the most money to spend. The fact that California is a single party state because of realignment and radicalization on the right makes all of this worse.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    - zeruch 4y ago
      They are indeed part of the problem. Once people get it out of their heads that California is a pure "blue" state and has in fact had a complex political history with a lot of moving changes, including many by the GOP, than it rapidly becomes less obviously a red or blue issue, but a very deeply purple one with no one lacking exposure.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      California was the home of Reagan and Nixon, and their legacy on state politics lives on to this day. As mentioned, Prop 13 was a libertarian tax revolt that continues to cause massive structural problems in the state's economy, which only gets papered over by the absolute dominance of the economic productivity of massive innovation. Even California's farmers have innovated far better than many other parts of the country, and grows massive amounts of food without needing the subsidies that so much of the rest of the country depends upon. But that's not what the commenter was complaining about, I think. My understanding is that his complaint is that Republicans made themselves irrelevant and destroyed their chances to provide a counterweight to Democratic efforts. They did commit a spectacular and awful suicide, through things like Prop 187. (However I disagree with the commenter on the Republican Party being able to provide a positive counterweight to Democratic legislation. IMHO their sort of rentier-promoting, winner takes all, style of legislation would kill off the in bio drive industries that drive California's amazing economic engine.)
rebelos 4y ago
> to appease those with conservative views on construction More like "enlightened views on wealth preservation." You can follow the incentives on this one. It's not that complicated.
- cowsandmilk 4y ago
  Generally, it isn’t preserving wealth though. Being able to build more densely increases my property’s value.
  - Aloha 4y ago
    But not it's value in its current state, it's as much about preserving the status quo.
    - sgc 4y ago
      I agree, but want to note: Landlords only vote once. Short of being extremely patronizing and presuming that the residents of SF are easy to bamboozle when they are paying very high prices to live there, it has to be recognized that there is a broad appeal to those who live there, including those who rent, to not change the housing regulations - because they do not want the growth. It would seem the housing shortage is a feature not a bug for the majority of residents. That might be selfish (and I certainly don't promote it here), but I do think it has been a societal choice rather than one of a few elites.
      - epistasis 4y ago
        Unfortunately the residents of SF have been far too easy to bamboozle by demonizing developers, both real estate (the villain of so many movies) and software (blamed for rising rents and inequality in SF despite the long-standing inequality for financial services, etc.). One of SF's big problems is the prevalence of culture war, vibes, and being hipper than thou overriding the economic interests of residents with less wealth.
        4y ago
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Yup, like the Sangiacomo family, a bunch of slumlords who own more real estate in SF than anyone else, and have done nothing of note to earn that position other than hoovering up real estate and sitting on it while rents skyrocketed: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Angelo-Sangiacomo-one-of-S-F-s-biggest-6684910.php#photo-9082190 https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Angelo-Sangiacomo-one... However, SF and California is largely run by a small handful of families who are "kingmakers." The Buells, Fishers, Guggenhimes, Gettys, Marcuses, Pritzkers, Swigs, and Trainas. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-francisco-families-20180907-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-...
- akomtu 4y ago
  Pritzkers also run the transgender industry in the US: all that expensive medicine and such.
ironmagma 4y ago
For the amount of hate the providers of wealth got during the boom time, it’s only fitting that SF finally sees a downturn. It was quite literally asked for in many ways by many people.

0xFACEFEED 4y ago

Genuine question: How much of this caused Prop 13? We bought a home in the Bay Area a few years ago. We considered the pros/cons of moving out of state and one pro of staying here was Prop 13 in California. We plan to retire in this home and figured Prop 13 will help make our post-retirement living expenses negligible. I only recently had the realization that Prop 13 could cause some serious problems like cities being incentivized to encourage resident "turnover" because new residents would be subject to current level property taxes. Another issue is cities having to rely more on sales taxes which discourages building residential housing and encourages building of commercial properties. Also when a recession hits then the cities are hit even harder because they aren't able to collect those sales taxes. We found that Bay Area schools are begging for money constantly and theorized that very low property tax income is a big part of that too. I mean... I like paying less but something about it feels wrong. Property taxes are a big source of income are they not?

Aloha 4y ago
Prop 13 is one of the legs of the stool of most dysfunction in California. Some of these are gonna spark controversy but term limits, the recall and ease of passing propositions are some of the other ones. The legislature is no longer professional enough to govern, so the people do it at the ballot box, at the behest of whom ever has the most money to spend. The fact that California is a single party state because of realignment and radicalization on the right makes all of this worse.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  - zeruch 4y ago
    They are indeed part of the problem. Once people get it out of their heads that California is a pure "blue" state and has in fact had a complex political history with a lot of moving changes, including many by the GOP, than it rapidly becomes less obviously a red or blue issue, but a very deeply purple one with no one lacking exposure.
  - epistasis 4y ago
    California was the home of Reagan and Nixon, and their legacy on state politics lives on to this day. As mentioned, Prop 13 was a libertarian tax revolt that continues to cause massive structural problems in the state's economy, which only gets papered over by the absolute dominance of the economic productivity of massive innovation. Even California's farmers have innovated far better than many other parts of the country, and grows massive amounts of food without needing the subsidies that so much of the rest of the country depends upon. But that's not what the commenter was complaining about, I think. My understanding is that his complaint is that Republicans made themselves irrelevant and destroyed their chances to provide a counterweight to Democratic efforts. They did commit a spectacular and awful suicide, through things like Prop 187. (However I disagree with the commenter on the Republican Party being able to provide a positive counterweight to Democratic legislation. IMHO their sort of rentier-promoting, winner takes all, style of legislation would kill off the in bio drive industries that drive California's amazing economic engine.)

rebelos 4y ago

> to appease those with conservative views on construction More like "enlightened views on wealth preservation." You can follow the incentives on this one. It's not that complicated.

cowsandmilk 4y ago
Generally, it isn’t preserving wealth though. Being able to build more densely increases my property’s value.
- Aloha 4y ago
  But not it's value in its current state, it's as much about preserving the status quo.
  - sgc 4y ago
    I agree, but want to note: Landlords only vote once. Short of being extremely patronizing and presuming that the residents of SF are easy to bamboozle when they are paying very high prices to live there, it has to be recognized that there is a broad appeal to those who live there, including those who rent, to not change the housing regulations - because they do not want the growth. It would seem the housing shortage is a feature not a bug for the majority of residents. That might be selfish (and I certainly don't promote it here), but I do think it has been a societal choice rather than one of a few elites.
    - epistasis 4y ago
      Unfortunately the residents of SF have been far too easy to bamboozle by demonizing developers, both real estate (the villain of so many movies) and software (blamed for rising rents and inequality in SF despite the long-standing inequality for financial services, etc.). One of SF's big problems is the prevalence of culture war, vibes, and being hipper than thou overriding the economic interests of residents with less wealth.
      - 4y ago

KennyBlanken 4y ago

Yup, like the Sangiacomo family, a bunch of slumlords who own more real estate in SF than anyone else, and have done nothing of note to earn that position other than hoovering up real estate and sitting on it while rents skyrocketed: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Angelo-Sangiacomo-one-of-S-F-s-biggest-6684910.php#photo-9082190 https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Angelo-Sangiacomo-one... However, SF and California is largely run by a small handful of families who are "kingmakers." The Buells, Fishers, Guggenhimes, Gettys, Marcuses, Pritzkers, Swigs, and Trainas. https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-francisco-families-20180907-story.html https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gavin-newsom-san-...

akomtu 4y ago
Pritzkers also run the transgender industry in the US: all that expensive medicine and such.

ironmagma 4y ago

For the amount of hate the providers of wealth got during the boom time, it’s only fitting that SF finally sees a downturn. It was quite literally asked for in many ways by many people.