4 ms·

Which would typically require demolition of existing structures. Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace

Which would typically require demolition of existing structures. Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed.

Hobotron1 12y ago
> Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. There are those that do who would gladly fork over a good chunk of change for their lots. > It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed. Yeah, lets inconvenience 99% of people just so those few won't be.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Who exactly is being inconvenienced? Those who do not currently live in the city?
  - Hobotron1 12y ago
    Current tenants- paying insane prices for rent And yes, those that would like to live in the city but can't because of the ridiculous rent or simply lack of rent-able places.
    - rdl 12y ago
      And the people who would like their pensions to be fully funded due to investment gains from new tech companies in SF, currently hindered by rent. And people who want to use exciting new products built by SF companies which are limited or don't happen due to lack of office space. It's a drag on not only the city but the state, nation, and world.
      - ndnichols 12y ago
        Are you being sarcastic? Or do you genuinely think the lack of office space in SF is a drag on the world?
        tdaltonc 12y ago
        Not office space so much as housing. "But for the tight limits on construction in California’s Bay Area, they reckon, employment there would be about five times larger than it is. In work that has yet to be published they tot up similar distortions across the whole economy from 1964 on and find that American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5% lower than it otherwise could have been. At current levels of output that is a cost of more than $2 trillion a year, or nearly $10,000 per person." http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-pre-industrial-economy-has-returned-constraint-growth?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-...
        rdl 11y ago
        Sorry, I meant housing, which raises base salaries, which makes it hard to do a bootstrapped startup (both one's own living expenses, and hiring first 20 employees requiring market salary to survive) If you could live comfortably in SF on $30k/yr like you can in a lot of college towns, you'd be able to bootstrap a company for a couple years on just your savings, which would increase the variation in startups -- you could see more genuinely ambitious startups which didn't depend on getting funded.
  - oxryly1 12y ago
    SF companies trying to hire people. Anyone in SF who would like to derive the benefit of the labor of low wage earners (teachers, nannies, chefs, etc).
yunesj 12y ago
> It would also require displacing current residents One of the drawbacks of renting is that you aren't guaranteed housing when your lease expires.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  In SF, when a lease "expires" it converts to an indefinite lease with a 30-day notice from the tenant to terminate. The lessor may only terminate for just-cause with varying notice periods and possible compensation to the lessee for damages caused.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - encoderer 12y ago
    Landlords push people out of housing in SF every day. It's often under shameful circumstances. And its not just Ellis Act, though that's a big part of it. Suffice to say, the lease isn't the problem.

Hobotron1 12y ago

> Most property owners don't have the capital to destroy their current structures just to replace them with taller buildings. There are those that do who would gladly fork over a good chunk of change for their lots. > It would also require displacing current residents, who won't have anywhere else to live while the new building is constructed. Yeah, lets inconvenience 99% of people just so those few won't be.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Who exactly is being inconvenienced? Those who do not currently live in the city?
- Hobotron1 12y ago
  Current tenants- paying insane prices for rent And yes, those that would like to live in the city but can't because of the ridiculous rent or simply lack of rent-able places.
  - rdl 12y ago
    And the people who would like their pensions to be fully funded due to investment gains from new tech companies in SF, currently hindered by rent. And people who want to use exciting new products built by SF companies which are limited or don't happen due to lack of office space. It's a drag on not only the city but the state, nation, and world.
    - ndnichols 12y ago
      Are you being sarcastic? Or do you genuinely think the lack of office space in SF is a drag on the world?
      - tdaltonc 12y ago
        Not office space so much as housing. "But for the tight limits on construction in California’s Bay Area, they reckon, employment there would be about five times larger than it is. In work that has yet to be published they tot up similar distortions across the whole economy from 1964 on and find that American GDP in 2009 was as much as 13.5% lower than it otherwise could have been. At current levels of output that is a cost of more than $2 trillion a year, or nearly $10,000 per person." http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-pre-industrial-economy-has-returned-constraint-growth?zid=311&ah=308cac674cccf554ce65cf926868bbc2 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21647622-land-centre-...
      - rdl 11y ago
        Sorry, I meant housing, which raises base salaries, which makes it hard to do a bootstrapped startup (both one's own living expenses, and hiring first 20 employees requiring market salary to survive) If you could live comfortably in SF on $30k/yr like you can in a lot of college towns, you'd be able to bootstrap a company for a couple years on just your savings, which would increase the variation in startups -- you could see more genuinely ambitious startups which didn't depend on getting funded.
- oxryly1 12y ago
  SF companies trying to hire people. Anyone in SF who would like to derive the benefit of the labor of low wage earners (teachers, nannies, chefs, etc).

yunesj 12y ago

> It would also require displacing current residents One of the drawbacks of renting is that you aren't guaranteed housing when your lease expires.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
In SF, when a lease "expires" it converts to an indefinite lease with a 30-day notice from the tenant to terminate. The lessor may only terminate for just-cause with varying notice periods and possible compensation to the lessee for damages caused.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- encoderer 12y ago
  Landlords push people out of housing in SF every day. It's often under shameful circumstances. And its not just Ellis Act, though that's a big part of it. Suffice to say, the lease isn't the problem.