27 ms·

not sure what you’re talking about but rents in SF are still very much down vs 2019 market has demonstrated plenty it can lower rents as is

by tempsy 3y ago

dymk 3y ago
Don’t pretend it’s anywhere near a free market as is. It’s nigh impossible to build new or denser inventory there.
- tempsy 3y ago
  Yeah that’s not true there’s plenty of half empty apartments all over soma and mission bay
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    And a vacancy tax would force developers to finish projects or abandon them completely so someone else can at a lower price. If it’s set where it’s cheaper to hang onto the vacancy until rents rise again and finish the build then, it’s a problem.
    - greenie_beans 3y ago
      > And a vacancy tax would force developers to finish projects or abandon them completely so someone else can at a lower price. i tend to favor vacancy tax, but this won't fix the problem with developers. SF needs to reform their review process. this is TLDR but there was a big study about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/san-francisco-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/san-francisco-housing.... it's already incredibly expensive for a developer to even go through the review process for a development, let alone build it. a vacancy tax would further deter developers from building in SF (as it's already happening due to the terrible review process)
      - vlovich123 3y ago
        That story is a bit dated. The California laws are forcing municipalities like SF to fix the review process and in fact a new plan was submitted in December and initially rejected before an updated plan was submitted at the end of December. The hope is that this fixes things and if it doesn’t SF is at risk of losing its zoning powers wholesale which may not be such a bad idea.
        greenie_beans 3y ago
        the story might be dated but the research that drove the story isn't dated, that's what i was trying to share. the action from the state and the municipalities was informed by a research project from UC Berkeley.
        vlovich123 3y ago
        Correct, I was only highlighting that the news story itself is way late and not really relevant as news. The research around zoning laws and their impact on housing development was known probably 5-10 years ago if not more, the state law changes passed within the past 1-2 years ago, and we are in the middle of the time period of the state enforcing all municipalities to conform or lose zoning privileges and SF nominally claims to have ratified changes to be conformant (the initial plan was rejected by the state and they submitted a revision at the deadline)
        greenie_beans 3y ago
        no this research is new and came out like two years ago. it was a different take on the typical research about zoning. it basically looked at the time it took project to get approved. this was a novel approach (believe it or not)
  - dymk 3y ago
    And lots of people want to move to the bay, yet the rents are high enough to prevent them from doing that. Weird, huh?
rsynnott 3y ago
Clearly not enough, if there are still vacancies.

not sure what you’re talking about but rents in SF are still very much down vs 2019 market has demonstrated plenty it can lower rents as is

by tempsy 3y ago

not sure what you’re talking about but rents in SF are still very much down vs 2019 market has demonstrated plenty it can lower rents as is

dymk 3y ago

Don’t pretend it’s anywhere near a free market as is. It’s nigh impossible to build new or denser inventory there.

tempsy 3y ago
Yeah that’s not true there’s plenty of half empty apartments all over soma and mission bay
- vlovich123 3y ago
  And a vacancy tax would force developers to finish projects or abandon them completely so someone else can at a lower price. If it’s set where it’s cheaper to hang onto the vacancy until rents rise again and finish the build then, it’s a problem.
  - greenie_beans 3y ago
    > And a vacancy tax would force developers to finish projects or abandon them completely so someone else can at a lower price. i tend to favor vacancy tax, but this won't fix the problem with developers. SF needs to reform their review process. this is TLDR but there was a big study about this: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/san-francisco-housing.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/us/san-francisco-housing.... it's already incredibly expensive for a developer to even go through the review process for a development, let alone build it. a vacancy tax would further deter developers from building in SF (as it's already happening due to the terrible review process)
    - vlovich123 3y ago
      That story is a bit dated. The California laws are forcing municipalities like SF to fix the review process and in fact a new plan was submitted in December and initially rejected before an updated plan was submitted at the end of December. The hope is that this fixes things and if it doesn’t SF is at risk of losing its zoning powers wholesale which may not be such a bad idea.
      - greenie_beans 3y ago
        the story might be dated but the research that drove the story isn't dated, that's what i was trying to share. the action from the state and the municipalities was informed by a research project from UC Berkeley.
        vlovich123 3y ago
        Correct, I was only highlighting that the news story itself is way late and not really relevant as news. The research around zoning laws and their impact on housing development was known probably 5-10 years ago if not more, the state law changes passed within the past 1-2 years ago, and we are in the middle of the time period of the state enforcing all municipalities to conform or lose zoning privileges and SF nominally claims to have ratified changes to be conformant (the initial plan was rejected by the state and they submitted a revision at the deadline)
        greenie_beans 3y ago
        no this research is new and came out like two years ago. it was a different take on the typical research about zoning. it basically looked at the time it took project to get approved. this was a novel approach (believe it or not)
- dymk 3y ago
  And lots of people want to move to the bay, yet the rents are high enough to prevent them from doing that. Weird, huh?

rsynnott 3y ago

Clearly not enough, if there are still vacancies.