4 ms·

I know people miss SF as it was before the boom, but can it actually readjust to substantially less tax revenue with the city government + responsibilities it h

by jmoak3 4y ago

I know people miss SF as it was before the boom, but can it actually readjust to substantially less tax revenue with the city government + responsibilities it has now? From what I read about Detroit, once businesses started shrinking or leaving the tax base shrank. The city was unable to cut down on services and spending, so it raised taxes on everyone remaining and the squeeze of more tax and worse QoL made people leave even faster. I'd love to hear if anyone has examples of a city's tax revenue shrinking at least ~20% in a couple years where the city correctly adjusts their services and scope to match, without facing some runaway decline or lost decade. Open to discussion on this. EDIT: Thinking aloud, maybe the people leaving Detroit due to loss of services/QoL were simply in the parts that Detroit was abandoning to make ends meet?

fundad 4y ago
It seems the faster people leave, the cheaper the housing gets which attracts more people. Will the millions of people clamoring to move into SF or any dense US city turn into a negative number?
- jmoak3 4y ago
  That's true - the hills, whales, architecture, and density that attracted bohemians before aren't going anywhere The people on the sidelines will definitely provide a floor to the prices of the homes. Home prices aside though the loss of the lucrative office workers buying lunch and renting offices will decrease tax revenue. Unless someone has any examples of a city that has navigated a downsizing well I do believe the QoL in 5 years will be worse than today's (provided we don't see an epic return to office). The question for people invested in the region is: "how much would demand from sideline people for these properties change if QoL was worse?" EDIT: Reworded the heck out of this EDIT: again
paxys 4y ago
> but can it actually readjust to substantially less tax revenue with the city government + responsibilities it has now That's the question isn't it? San Francisco has by far the highest per-capita city budget in the country. It spends more on homeless services in a year than most cities of similar size spend on everything. The city is simply addicted to spending money, and looking at the deterioration of street conditions, increase in homelessness and addiction, increase in property crime and more, they are clearly not getting its worth. Theoretically could the city make do with a 30% budget cut year over year? It absolutely could. Columbus, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Fort Worth, Memphis, and even San Jose and San Diego somehow survive on 1/5 - 1/10 the money despite supporting similar sized populations. It remains to be seen whether San Francisco can make the correct cuts and not drive away the remaining tax generating citizens and companies.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  The lesson of "you get what you incentivize" seems to be lost on them.
baggy_trough 4y ago
The SF bureaucracy and homeless nonprofits have metastasized into a self licking ice cream cone of immense magnitude. There is no way to adjust downward without someone actually having to suffer a moment of accountability. That will be bitterly resisted indeed.
- fmajid 4y ago
  By my back of the envelope calculations the city bureaucracy absorbed in salaries and benefits at least 40% of the +110% increase in city budget between 2008 and 2021. That's even before considering the welfare-industrial complex.

by jmoak3 4y ago

fundad 4y ago

It seems the faster people leave, the cheaper the housing gets which attracts more people. Will the millions of people clamoring to move into SF or any dense US city turn into a negative number?

jmoak3 4y ago
That's true - the hills, whales, architecture, and density that attracted bohemians before aren't going anywhere The people on the sidelines will definitely provide a floor to the prices of the homes. Home prices aside though the loss of the lucrative office workers buying lunch and renting offices will decrease tax revenue. Unless someone has any examples of a city that has navigated a downsizing well I do believe the QoL in 5 years will be worse than today's (provided we don't see an epic return to office). The question for people invested in the region is: "how much would demand from sideline people for these properties change if QoL was worse?" EDIT: Reworded the heck out of this EDIT: again

paxys 4y ago

> but can it actually readjust to substantially less tax revenue with the city government + responsibilities it has now That's the question isn't it? San Francisco has by far the highest per-capita city budget in the country. It spends more on homeless services in a year than most cities of similar size spend on everything. The city is simply addicted to spending money, and looking at the deterioration of street conditions, increase in homelessness and addiction, increase in property crime and more, they are clearly not getting its worth. Theoretically could the city make do with a 30% budget cut year over year? It absolutely could. Columbus, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Fort Worth, Memphis, and even San Jose and San Diego somehow survive on 1/5 - 1/10 the money despite supporting similar sized populations. It remains to be seen whether San Francisco can make the correct cuts and not drive away the remaining tax generating citizens and companies.

SoftTalker 4y ago
The lesson of "you get what you incentivize" seems to be lost on them.

baggy_trough 4y ago

The SF bureaucracy and homeless nonprofits have metastasized into a self licking ice cream cone of immense magnitude. There is no way to adjust downward without someone actually having to suffer a moment of accountability. That will be bitterly resisted indeed.

fmajid 4y ago
By my back of the envelope calculations the city bureaucracy absorbed in salaries and benefits at least 40% of the +110% increase in city budget between 2008 and 2021. That's even before considering the welfare-industrial complex.