5 ms·

The city seems to be at it's most lively since covid, but the offices are still empty. Before covid SF actively did it's best to antagonize the companies who's

by ciguy 4y ago

The city seems to be at it's most lively since covid, but the offices are still empty. Before covid SF actively did it's best to antagonize the companies who's tax revenue it relied on. Now that they've taken their ball to play elsewhere, I don't see what the city is going to do for revenue. I work in the financial district and the number of empty spaces that used to house cafes and restaurants is shocking. Unless they manage to pivot that office space to housing (Very difficult for multiple structural reasons), the downtown of SF is going to continue to look like Zombieland.

RichardCNormos 4y ago
- kasey_junk 4y ago
  Are you suggesting that an American city could socialize a large chunk of its private real estate with the stroke of a pen or that landlords are waiting for some legal change to turn their office/retail space into homeless shelters and needle exchanges?
  - AdrianB1 4y ago
    I'm not sure if that was sarcasm (especially the part with needle exchange), but it is San Francisco so yes, it could.
    - water554 4y ago
      I would rather free housing go to people in need who work for a living
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    Boston has done it, I worked with an affordable housing group that worked on this stuff. The difference was these were largely undeveloped lots, not office buildings.
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      That seems like a big distinction…
  - bdw5204 4y ago
    The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution specifically permits eminent domain with "just compensation" so yes an American city could take a large chunk of its private real estate under eminent domain and put it to "public use". Converting vacant office buildings into homeless shelters would absolutely count as a "public use".
    - kasey_junk 4y ago
      Buying some of the most expensive real estate in the world with “just compensation” seems like it’s more than a stroke of a pen. Further, the court cases this will bring will take _forever_ because one side will be extremely well funded and the other side will be the city of San Francisco. Not the stroke of a pen.
  - kjkjadksj 4y ago
    Why not? Theyve laid waste to hundreds of thousands of homes to build freeways with a stroke of a pen before.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  You mean the stroke of a pen and a massive amount of money (to buy the buildings, convert them to the legal standards for such spaces, manage the buildings, manage the programs, etc, etc.).
- dilap 4y ago
  With just a little initiative, the whole city could be like the TL.
- gedy 4y ago
  While well intentioned, this would tank commercial and residential occupancy further, and SF is a uniquely bad location for that approach.
- refurb 4y ago
  Induced demand just like roads.
- fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
  Sounds like a dream for a drug addict. Do heroin all day, get clean needles, breakfast and a place to sleep
- blululu 4y ago
  No. The problem is deeper than that. Adding more housing and more services will help but don't kid yourself into thinking that these things are free or that they will magically make the problems disappear. People will still be on drugs. People will still have mental health problems. People will still commit crimes. The amount of work required is bigger than any writing implement can accomplish.
- ciguy 4y ago
  Wow what a great original idea. Let's just turn the whole city into an unlivable hellscape like the Tenderloin!
- ztrww 4y ago
  Nope. after this even more people would move into SF increasing the homeless population and the demand for low income housing. Or do you actually believe that the majority of homeless people in SF grew up there?
abeppu 4y ago
> Before covid SF actively did it's best to antagonize the companies who's tax revenue it relied on. I think that's a misleading characterization. The city notoriously gave tax breaks to large tech companies, accompanied by some weak rhetoric about supporting local communities, but with weak or no oversight confirming any real local benefits. I also think it's important to distinguish between _office space_ and _retail space_. Retail and restaurant spaces will also struggle to get filled if neighborhood office workers are getting catered in-office lunch, getting delivery from ghost kitchens, and buying goods from amazon etc. I.e. the way we live and work increasingly supports the Zombieland street-level experience.
- bpodgursky 4y ago
  > The city notoriously gave tax breaks to large tech companies The city notoriously set up large and complex taxes on tech companies in SF and then randomly and unpredictably granted breaks to the ones that had the best lobbying. > accompanied by some weak rhetoric about supporting local communities And billions of dollars sent into homeless slush funds for activists and nonprofits with no accountability for how the money was spent. > no oversight confirming any real local benefits Accurate
  - abeppu 4y ago
    > And billions of dollars sent into homeless slush funds for activists and nonprofits with no accountability for how the money was spent. I'm not claiming that the city spends responsibly, but next month SF will at least vote on a ballot measure which would create an oversight commission for HSH spending and programs, and require audits of services provided. We have an opportunity to improve things.
- ciguy 4y ago
  No, the city is a notoriously high tax, hostile and bureaucratic hellscape when it comes to running any kind of business. Just because they are corrupt and hand out a few token tax breaks to their richest cronies doesn't make them business friendly.
- fragmede 4y ago
scotuswroteus 4y ago
What if I told you the manhattanization of downtown was never the dream of local San Franciscans and only a fleeting goal of elite-funded politicians who used job growth during their tenures as pols here to argue that they should be elected or appointed to state-level leadership? What if San Francisco got that Zombieland back, because to many San Franciscans, even a bustling business sector full of people wearing tech fleeces WAS a Zombieland?
- ciguy 4y ago
  Ok NIMBY.

by ciguy 4y ago

RichardCNormos 4y ago

kasey_junk 4y ago
Are you suggesting that an American city could socialize a large chunk of its private real estate with the stroke of a pen or that landlords are waiting for some legal change to turn their office/retail space into homeless shelters and needle exchanges?
- AdrianB1 4y ago
  I'm not sure if that was sarcasm (especially the part with needle exchange), but it is San Francisco so yes, it could.
  - water554 4y ago
    I would rather free housing go to people in need who work for a living
- whimsicalism 4y ago
  Boston has done it, I worked with an affordable housing group that worked on this stuff. The difference was these were largely undeveloped lots, not office buildings.
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    That seems like a big distinction…
- bdw5204 4y ago
  The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution specifically permits eminent domain with "just compensation" so yes an American city could take a large chunk of its private real estate under eminent domain and put it to "public use". Converting vacant office buildings into homeless shelters would absolutely count as a "public use".
  - kasey_junk 4y ago
    Buying some of the most expensive real estate in the world with “just compensation” seems like it’s more than a stroke of a pen. Further, the court cases this will bring will take _forever_ because one side will be extremely well funded and the other side will be the city of San Francisco. Not the stroke of a pen.
- kjkjadksj 4y ago
  Why not? Theyve laid waste to hundreds of thousands of homes to build freeways with a stroke of a pen before.
marcinzm 4y ago
You mean the stroke of a pen and a massive amount of money (to buy the buildings, convert them to the legal standards for such spaces, manage the buildings, manage the programs, etc, etc.).
dilap 4y ago
With just a little initiative, the whole city could be like the TL.
gedy 4y ago
While well intentioned, this would tank commercial and residential occupancy further, and SF is a uniquely bad location for that approach.
refurb 4y ago
Induced demand just like roads.
fdgsdfogijq 4y ago
Sounds like a dream for a drug addict. Do heroin all day, get clean needles, breakfast and a place to sleep
blululu 4y ago
No. The problem is deeper than that. Adding more housing and more services will help but don't kid yourself into thinking that these things are free or that they will magically make the problems disappear. People will still be on drugs. People will still have mental health problems. People will still commit crimes. The amount of work required is bigger than any writing implement can accomplish.
ciguy 4y ago
Wow what a great original idea. Let's just turn the whole city into an unlivable hellscape like the Tenderloin!
ztrww 4y ago
Nope. after this even more people would move into SF increasing the homeless population and the demand for low income housing. Or do you actually believe that the majority of homeless people in SF grew up there?

abeppu 4y ago

> Before covid SF actively did it's best to antagonize the companies who's tax revenue it relied on. I think that's a misleading characterization. The city notoriously gave tax breaks to large tech companies, accompanied by some weak rhetoric about supporting local communities, but with weak or no oversight confirming any real local benefits. I also think it's important to distinguish between _office space_ and _retail space_. Retail and restaurant spaces will also struggle to get filled if neighborhood office workers are getting catered in-office lunch, getting delivery from ghost kitchens, and buying goods from amazon etc. I.e. the way we live and work increasingly supports the Zombieland street-level experience.

bpodgursky 4y ago
> The city notoriously gave tax breaks to large tech companies The city notoriously set up large and complex taxes on tech companies in SF and then randomly and unpredictably granted breaks to the ones that had the best lobbying. > accompanied by some weak rhetoric about supporting local communities And billions of dollars sent into homeless slush funds for activists and nonprofits with no accountability for how the money was spent. > no oversight confirming any real local benefits Accurate
- abeppu 4y ago
  > And billions of dollars sent into homeless slush funds for activists and nonprofits with no accountability for how the money was spent. I'm not claiming that the city spends responsibly, but next month SF will at least vote on a ballot measure which would create an oversight commission for HSH spending and programs, and require audits of services provided. We have an opportunity to improve things.
ciguy 4y ago
No, the city is a notoriously high tax, hostile and bureaucratic hellscape when it comes to running any kind of business. Just because they are corrupt and hand out a few token tax breaks to their richest cronies doesn't make them business friendly.
fragmede 4y ago

scotuswroteus 4y ago

What if I told you the manhattanization of downtown was never the dream of local San Franciscans and only a fleeting goal of elite-funded politicians who used job growth during their tenures as pols here to argue that they should be elected or appointed to state-level leadership? What if San Francisco got that Zombieland back, because to many San Franciscans, even a bustling business sector full of people wearing tech fleeces WAS a Zombieland?

ciguy 4y ago
Ok NIMBY.