5 ms·
Sure, it's expensive to live in San Francisco, which is why only people who make a lot of money can or should live there. It's like Beverley Hills. Nobody comp
by afafsd 12y ago
Sure, it's expensive to live in San Francisco, which is why only people who make a lot of money can or should live there.
It's like Beverley Hills. Nobody complains (or at least if they do, they don't get publicity) that it's unfair how expensive it is to live in Beverley Hills; if you can't afford to live in Beverley Hills you live somewhere cheaper.
An unfair comparison perhaps, since Beverley Hills has been super-expensive for decades whereas San Francisco has recently gone from fairly expensive to super expensive, meaning there's a lot of people who could previously afford to rent in San Francisco who no longer can. But that's life, and that's the risk you take if you choose to rent rather than buy.
- msoad 12y agoI lived in Beverly Hills from 2010 to 2012. I paid $1300 for a really nice two bedroom apartment. It's not that expensive there.
- contingencies 12y agoSeconded. In 2010, $1700 for Mulholland Drive free-standing house with a brilliant view. (I cycled about instead of owning a car and avoided the local gym and cocaine habits, which easily made up for the difference!)
- gnarbarian 12y agoI agree with you. SF is just showing supply and demand in action. On the demand side it would be smart for companies to give up on trendy SF and look elsewhere in my opinion. Is it really worth it to be there? It makes sense for so many reasons with how high taxes are in California and rent in SF to move. I hear there are many companies moving to portland. Regarding SF. they ought to relax the building regulations to make it easier for people to expand their homes, build guest houses to rent out, re-zone areas to allow people to build in higher density etc. This can help increase the supply of houses and drive down the average price to rent.
- Thaxll 12y agoI don't understand the last part, if the rent is high buying will be high too.
- afafsd 12y agoI mean that those who have been living in the city for decades but didn't buy there may now find themselves pushed out. They could have bought twenty years ago for much less but they didn't. If they'd bought property they would have instead made a huge profit. That's one of the risks you take when you rent rather than buy -- that values may go up significantly and push you out.
- bch 12y agoOr, you buy at a price you can afford, but find over time you're taxed (directly, indirectly) beyond your means and still can't afford to live there.
- madengr 12y ago"They could have bought twenty years ago for much less but they didn't." Ah, but it really wasn't much less 20 years ago. It was STILL expensive compared to everywhere else.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]