The suffering of the six-figure income earners, aka even the wealthy say that livin in San Francisco sucks

dud

Diamond Member
Feb 18, 2001
7,635
73
91
A very interesting read. Would appreciate any feedback from those suffering in San Fran ...



http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/real...e-city-they-transformed/ar-AADGohK?ocid=ientp


'We all suffer': Why San Francisco techies hate the city they transformed


Some snippets:

"A quarter of a century after the first dot-com boom, the battle for San Francisco’s soul is over and the tech industry has won. But what happens when the victors realize they don’t particularly like the spoils?

Tech workers are increasingly vocal about their discontent with the city they fought so hard to conquer. In May, the median market rent for a one-bedroom apartment reached an all-time high of $3,700 a month, according to the rental site Zumper. Meanwhile, the city saw a 17% increase in its homeless population between 2017 and 2019, and residents complain of visible drug usage, fear of crime and dirty streets. Even Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce and a San Francisco native who has long urged comity between the techies and the city, has taken to calling his hometown a “train wreck.""

"It’s a striking contrast from just five years ago, when tech workers showed up in force at San Francisco City Hall to declare their love and respect for a city that was not exactly loving them back. “I am so proud to live in San Francisco and be a part of this community,” Google employees were instructed to say, as a preface to their remarks at a January 2014 hearing before the local transportation authority, according to a leaked company memo."

"That hearing was one of several pivotal moments in recent San Francisco history when public officials could have used the city’s legislative or regulatory powers to force the tech industry to contribute more to public services, but chose not to. Such inflection points (which also include a controversial 2011 tax break for Twitter and a failed attempt at a “tech tax” in 2016) highlight the complicated relationship between the city government and an industry that has brought untold wealth and jobs, but has arguably failed to pay its fair share – while treating the city as a petri dish for disruptive innovations (think Uber, Airbnb and self-driving cars) by ignoring regulations.

The nominal issue in 2014 was the use of public bus stops by private charter shuttles (AKA “Google buses”) hired by tech companies to ferry employees the 45 miles south to their Silicon Valley headquarters. Activists wanted the double-decker buses banned from the streets and the companies fined for the illegal use of bus stops; the city chose to legalize the buses.
The Google Bus controversy was particularly charged because it tapped into local residents’ deep concern that San Francisco – a city with the population of Jacksonville, Florida, and the self-importance of New York – would be reduced to a bedroom community for Silicon Valley. But while the buses continue to ply their routes north and south, that particular nightmare scenario hasn’t come to pass. Instead, San Francisco has become more of a satellite campus, with South Bay stalwarts including Apple, Facebook, Google and LinkedIn competing for office space in the city proper. They’ve joined the San Francisco-native companies Twitter, Uber, and Airbnb in the cramped confines of a city of just 49 square miles, surrounded by water on three sides.

The consequences of that squeeze are well documented: the outrageous housing costs, the displacement of black and Latino families, evictions, homelessness, the loss of beloved businesses and cultural institutions. The tale of how tech destroyed the city that gave us the Summer of Love has been told so many times that in 2014, the San Francisco Chronicle produced a satirical cheat sheet for out-of-town reporters parachuting in for taste of avocado toast and class warfare. (Amid a bumper crop of new elegies to San Francisco in recent months, web publication HmmDaily updated the form with an “AI Algorithm-generated” version.)"

And ...

"The arguments against San Francisco are manifold: it’s too expensive even for people making six-figure salaries, it’s dangerous and depressingly unequal, and, increasingly, it’s kind of boring. A frequent refrain among the more than a dozen tech workers who spoke to the Guardian for this article was that it is not so much the presence of have-nots that is ruining their experience of San Francisco, but an overabundance of haves.

“The housing crisis has a huge negative impact on quality of life because of who it excludes from living near you,” said Simon Willison, a software developer who moved to San Francisco from London five years ago. “When I visit other cities I’m always jealous of their income diversity: that people who have jobs that don’t provide a six-digit salary can afford to live and work and be happy.”

“Even though people think there is diversity in the city, there isn’t really,” said Adrianna Tan, a senior product manager at a tech startup who moved to San Francisco from Singapore. “Sure, you get people from all over the world, but the only ones who can move here now come from the same socio-economic class.”

“I feel like San Francisco is between Seattle and New York, but rather than the best of both, it’s the worst of both,” said Beth, a 24-year-old product manager who asked not to be identified by her real name. Beth moved to the city directly after graduating from Stanford to work at a major tech company, but recently transferred to Seattle. “Everyone I met was only interested in their jobs, and their jobs weren’t very interesting,” she said of her time in San Francisco. “I get it, you’re a developer for Uber, I’ve met a million of you.”

One aspect of that homogeneity is that when everyone around you is either rich or destitute, being rich doesn’t feel that rich.

“Unless you’re here to hit the IPO jackpot, you’ll always be middle-class,” said Chris, a former Apple manager who recently decided to leave San Francisco for Texas and spoke on condition of anonymity. “Tech salaries allow you to get by for now, but there’s no future for anyone under 40 in this city who’s not rich.”"
 

IJTSSG

Golden Member
Aug 12, 2014
1,120
276
136
Mckesson is moving to Dallas, Charles Schwab isn't hiring any new positions or back filling vacancies in SanFran.
 

skull

Platinum Member
Jun 5, 2000
2,209
327
126
I searched as soon as I saw $3700 for a 1 bed. The first two units I came up with were studios for $1000/month that are way nicer than my first one bed apartment for $500/month. I bet I could get a shit hole or rent a room even cheaper. If I could make twice as much money in san fransisco but only have to pay twice the rent or less I'd be banking all kinds of money.

I'm sure the complainers are all the same there like here in the land of cheap. They think they deserve the nicest of everything close to their budget if not over their budget then cry poor.
 
Reactions: KeithP

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,710
49,291
136
San Fran:‘The cost of housing is causing huge negative impacts on our quality of life’

Fskimospy: ‘Okay then, let’s make lots more housing. That will lower the price of housing.’

San Fran: ‘no! That would change the character of our neighborhoods!’

Fskimospy: ‘.........’

San Francisco can solve their problem any time they want. They have sky-high demand and limited space. They can either meet the demand by building houses by the tens of thousands or they can eliminate the demand by crashing their local economy.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Sounds like bedroom towns and foreign rail technology would work. High speed trains on elevated tracks could move a whole lot of people while having a minimal footprint and impact on the land and property itself.
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
Do as I say not as I do rich Liberals, reaping what they sowed,

blame Trump, because if he wasn't there for their not so rich progressive puppets to have something to lash out against maybe they would see how the rich, so called liberals, are bending them over and finally rise up against them and treat them no different than the Koch bros as well as the rich conservatives they are taught to hate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html
America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals.

The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.

To live in California at this time is to experience every day the cryptic phrase that George W. Bush once used to describe the invasion of Iraq: “Catastrophic success.” The economy here is booming, but no one feels especially good about it. When the cost of living is taken into account, billionaire-brimming California ranks as the most poverty-stricken state, with a fifth of the population struggling to get by. Since 2010, migration out of California has surged.

The basic problem is the steady collapse of livability. Across my home state, traffic and transportation is a developing-world nightmare. Child care and education seem impossible for all but the wealthiest. The problems of affordable housing and homelessness have surpassed all superlatives — what was a crisis is now an emergency that feels like a dystopian showcase of American inequality.

Just look at San Francisco, Nancy Pelosi’s city. One of every 11,600 residents is a billionaire, and the annual household income necessary to buy a median-priced home now tops $320,000. Yet the streets there are a plague of garbage and needles and feces, and every morning brings fresh horror stories from a “Black Mirror” hellscape: Homeless veterans are surviving on an economy of trash from billionaires’ mansions. Wealthy homeowners are crowdfunding a legal effort arguing that a proposed homeless shelter is an environmental hazard. A public-school teacher suffering from cancer is forced to pay for her own substitute.

And there is no end in sight to such crushing success. At every level of government, our representatives, nearly all of them Democrats, prove inadequate and unresponsive to the challenges at hand. Witness last week’s embarrassment, when California lawmakers used a sketchy parliamentary maneuver to knife Senate Bill 50, an ambitious effort to undo restrictive local zoning rules and increase the supply of housing.

It was another chapter in a dismal saga of Nimbyist urban mismanagement that is crushing American cities. Not-in-my-backyardism is a bipartisan sentiment, but because the largest American cities are populated and run by Democrats — many in states under complete Democratic control — this sort of nakedly exclusionary urban restrictionism is a particular shame of the left.

There are many threads in the story of America’s increasingly unlivable cities. One continuing tragedy is the decimation of local media and the rise of nationalized politics in its place. In America the “local” problems plaguing cities are systematically sidelined by the structure of the national media and government, in which the presidency, the Senate and the Supreme Court are all constitutionally tilted in favor of places where no one lives. (There are more than twice as many people in my midsize suburban county, Santa Clara, as there are in the entire state of North Dakota, with its two United States senators.)

That’s why, aside from Elizabeth Warren — who has a plan for housing, as she has a plan for everything — Democrats on the 2020 presidential trail rarely mention their ideas for housing affordability, an issue eating American cities alive. I watched Joe Biden’s campaign kick off the other day; the only house he mentioned was the White House.

Then there is the refusal on the part of wealthy progressives to live by the values they profess to support at the national level. Creating dense, economically and socially diverse urban environments ought to be a paramount goal of progressivism. Cities are the standard geographical unit of the global economy. Dense urban areas are quite literally the “real America” — the cities are where two-thirds of Americans live, and they account for almost all national economic output. Urban areas are the most environmentally friendly way we know of housing lots of people. We can’t solve the climate crisis without vastly improving public transportation and increasing urban density. More than that, metropolises are good for the psyche and the soul; density fosters tolerance, diversity, creativity and progress.

Yet where progressives argue for openness and inclusion as a cudgel against President Trump, they abandon it on Nob Hill and in Beverly Hills. This explains the opposition to SB 50, which aimed to address the housing shortage in a very straightforward way: by building more housing. The bill would have erased single-family zoning in populous areas near transit locations. Areas zoned for homes housing a handful of people could have been redeveloped to include duplexes and apartment buildings that housed hundreds.

The bill had garnered support from a diverse coalition of business and advocacy groups, and its sponsor, State Senator Scott Wiener, had negotiated a series of compromises with some of its fiercest opponents. Polls showed the measure to be widely popular. For the first time, something extraordinary looked possible: California’s wealthy homeowners would abandon their restrictionist attitudes and let us build some new housing.

Nope. Instead, Anthony Portantino, a Democratic state senator whose district includes the posh city of La Cañada Flintridge and who heads the appropriations committee, announced that he’d be shelving the bill until next year. In an interview with The Los Angeles Times, he worried that the law would spur lots of people to move near residential bus routes, which he suggested would alter the character of enclaves like his.

And? Why is that so bad?

Reading opposition to SB 50 and other efforts at increasing density, I’m struck by an unsettling thought: What Republicans want to do with I.C.E. and border walls, wealthy progressive Democrats are doing with zoning and Nimbyism. Preserving “local character,” maintaining “local control,” keeping housing scarce and inaccessible — the goals of both sides are really the same: to keep people out.

“We’re saying we welcome immigration, we welcome refugees, we welcome outsiders — but you’ve got to have a $2 million entrance fee to live here, otherwise you can use this part of a sidewalk for a tent,” said Brian Hanlon, president of the pro-density group California Yimby. “That to me is not being very welcoming. It’s not being very neighborly.”
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Austin is the new San Francisco bunghole bastard child of Texas anyhow. The people you are speaking of aren't stupid - there is a mass migration out to places that are reasonable costs of living that also have decent tech sectors.

Same thing might happen to Texas though over the years - though certainly not to the same extent... But I mean as far as appreciation, I live out in the suburbs and the house my wife bought 9 years ago for $140k just sold for $215k. That's a fat chunk of change for just 9 years in a shitty neighborhood.
 
Reactions: local

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
Do as I say not as I do rich Liberals, reaping what they sowed,

blame Trump, because if he wasn't there for their not so rich progressive puppets to have something to lash out against maybe they would see how the rich, so called liberals, are bending them over and finally rise up against them and treat them no different than the Koch bros as well as the rich conservatives they are taught to hate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/22/opinion/california-housing-nimby.html
America’s Cities Are Unlivable. Blame Wealthy Liberals.

The demise of a California housing measure shows how progressives abandon progressive values in their own backyards.

Your posts and links to confirmation bias get more desperate as time goes by. What meds are you on/(off)?
 
Reactions: Indus and Meghan54

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,710
49,291
136
Your posts and links to confirmation bias get more desperate as time goes by. What meds are you on/(off)?

I mean he’s pretty nuts about free trade but in this case what is his article wrong about?

People who claim to embrace liberal values also pursue housing policy that inflicts enormous harm on the communities they claim to care about.
 
Nov 8, 2012
20,828
4,777
146
Your posts and links to confirmation bias get more desperate as time goes by. What meds are you on/(off)?

Links to "confirmation bias"? I didn't know the NY Times was known for being so anti liberal.

Or maybe.. JUST MAYBE.... Your bias is getting the best of.... You... fucking idiot.
 
Reactions: Challenger

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,756
34,634
136
San Fran:‘The cost of housing is causing huge negative impacts on our quality of life’

Fskimospy: ‘Okay then, let’s make lots more housing. That will lower the price of housing.’

San Fran: ‘no! That would change the character of our neighborhoods!’

Fskimospy: ‘.........’

San Francisco can solve their problem any time they want. They have sky-high demand and limited space. They can either meet the demand by building houses by the tens of thousands or they can eliminate the demand by crashing their local economy.

Yeah, Seattle did the opposite and while cost of living is still high relative to much of the country it hasn't reached the catastrophic levels of the Bay Area (or increasingly costal CA in general). They just thew a shitload of supply at the problem and it helped.
 
Reactions: Aegeon

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
I mean he’s pretty nuts about free trade but in this case what is his article wrong about?

People who claim to embrace liberal values also pursue housing policy that inflicts enormous harm on the communities they claim to care about.

His post is that of a rabid insane person and his link is confirmation bias regarding things he already knows about "liberals"... I said postS and linkS... I replied to a few other doozies of his today specifically Op-Ed hit pieces on liberals... Even a broken clock is sometimes right with A link... still confirmation bias 100%...
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,756
34,634
136
Sounds like bedroom towns and foreign rail technology would work. High speed trains on elevated tracks could move a whole lot of people while having a minimal footprint and impact on the land and property itself.

Reaching the Central Valley is the problem. Either they'd have to build another tube under the bay, go through the east bay towns, and over Altamont or do what CAHSR planned and go under Pacheco Pass. Either option is extremely expensive, at least the way we do things in the US.

Short term extending electrified Caltrain to Hollister is about the best that could reasonably be done.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,710
49,291
136
His post is that of a rabid insane person and his link is confirmation bias regarding things he already knows about "liberals"... I said postS and linkS... I replied to a few other doozies of his today specifically Op-Ed hit pieces on liberals... Even a broken clock is sometimes right with A link... still confirmation bias 100%...

But doesn’t confirmation bias imply that he has accepted an idea that is wrong? San Francisco has NIMBYed itself into a housing disaster.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,710
49,291
136
Yeah, Seattle did the opposite and while cost of living is still high relative to much of the country it hasn't reached the catastrophic levels of the Bay Area (or increasingly costal CA in general). They just thew a shitload of supply at the problem and it helped.

Yep. Rents in Seattle have actually started to decline despite a continued boom in high wage employment.

https://www.oregonlive.com/business...ords-compete-for-tenants-as-market-cools.html

Removing restrictive zoning is not 100% of the answer but it’s a big part.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,620
5,311
136
San Fran:‘The cost of housing is causing huge negative impacts on our quality of life’

Fskimospy: ‘Okay then, let’s make lots more housing. That will lower the price of housing.’

San Fran: ‘no! That would change the character of our neighborhoods!’

Fskimospy: ‘.........’

San Francisco can solve their problem any time they want. They have sky-high demand and limited space. They can either meet the demand by building houses by the tens of thousands or they can eliminate the demand by crashing their local economy.
I guess they just keep stacking them up higher and higher, make the streets narrower, and dump the sewage in the bay every time it rains and overwhelms the system.
Other than the sewage, it's fine with me.

BTW, the cost of building a house in SF is probably south of $500 a square foot by now. Not including land, architectural, engineering, permits, school fees, and various taxes.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,756
34,634
136
Austin is the new San Francisco bunghole bastard child of Texas anyhow. The people you are speaking of aren't stupid - there is a mass migration out to places that are reasonable costs of living that also have decent tech sectors.

Same thing might happen to Texas though over the years - though certainly not to the same extent... But I mean as far as appreciation, I live out in the suburbs and the house my wife bought 9 years ago for $140k just sold for $215k. That's a fat chunk of change for just 9 years in a shitty neighborhood.

The tech companies have realized that continued growth in the bay is painful from a lot of perspectives and recruitment is actually suffering since people are aware of the issues. Seattle and Austin are picking up a lot of the growth but diffuse places on the east coast are as well.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,756
34,634
136
I guess they just keep stacking them up higher and higher, make the streets narrower, and dump the sewage in the bay every time it rains and overwhelms the system.
Other than the sewage, it's fine with me.

BTW, the cost of building a house in SF is probably south of $500 a square foot by now. Not including land, architectural, engineering, permits, school fees, and various taxes.

IIRC the frequency and scale of CSO events for SF is very small compared to the east bay cities and peninsula.

Density could be significantly increased with only modest increases in height.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
110,804
29,554
146
San Fran:‘The cost of housing is causing huge negative impacts on our quality of life’

Fskimospy: ‘Okay then, let’s make lots more housing. That will lower the price of housing.’

San Fran: ‘no! That would change the character of our neighborhoods!’

Fskimospy: ‘.........’

San Francisco can solve their problem any time they want. They have sky-high demand and limited space. They can either meet the demand by building houses by the tens of thousands or they can eliminate the demand by crashing their local economy.

pretty much this.

as to the bolded: it is these very same tech jerk jizzrags that have moved into SF because of "its character," completely robbed the place of life and sterilized it to look like every block is some poorly-lit trendy coffee shop shit hole because that is actually what they want, then get angry that "the character" will vanish.

These are the assholes that rob the city of any and all character. Honestly, they should just move to the 20-30 miles away to where they actually work, and bitch about the "strip mall living" that they refuse to accept. These are some of the worst people anywhere.
 
Reactions: Meghan54

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,710
49,291
136
I guess they just keep stacking them up higher and higher, make the streets narrower, and dump the sewage in the bay every time it rains and overwhelms the system.
Other than the sewage, it's fine with me.

When you build more houses you get more residents and more tax revenues which allows you to make better systems.

BTW, the cost of building a house in SF is probably south of $500 a square foot by now. Not including land, architectural, engineering, permits, school fees, and various taxes.

Housing costs in San Francisco are radically out of line with what construction costs would dictate due to the fact that people have spent the last 3-4 decades refusing to build more houses and just pretending that everything will work itself out. Places like San Francisco specifically create onerous regulations on what people can do with their land (i.e. they can't build denser housing) which drives up costs to a point they are radically higher than land costs and construction costs would dictate.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,819
1,126
126
But doesn’t confirmation bias imply that he has accepted an idea that is wrong? San Francisco has NIMBYed itself into a housing disaster.

I have always used this definition: Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses...

Finally linking to something that may be correct and even *gasp* may have been written/published by a source not usually favorable to the addict ("the Left") doesn't change the fact that there are defective desires and tendencies to only seek truths one already believe to be true...
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,710
49,291
136
pretty much this.

as to the bolded: it is these very same tech jerk jizzrags that have moved into SF because of "its character," completely robbed the place of life and sterilized it to look like every block is some poorly-lit trendy coffee shop shit hole because that is actually what they want, then get angry that "the character" will vanish.

These are the assholes that rob the city of any and all character. Honestly, they should just move to the 20-30 miles away to where they actually work, and bitch about the "strip mall living" that they refuse to accept. These are some of the worst people anywhere.

It seems that people want all the economic opportunity created by dense collections of highly skilled people without any of the costs of that density.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |