
San Francisco Tech Boom Brings Concerns - olegious
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/05/us/san-francisco-tech-boom-brings-jobs-and-worries.html?_r=1&hp&pagewanted=all
======
potatolicious
Very real concerns indeed. San Francisco is the most puzzling and frustrating
city to try to comprehend. It's equal parts optimistic futurism and steadfast
abhorrence to change.

Walk down the streets, look inside City Hall - look at the extreme effort
applied to make sure even the streetcars hail from the early 20th century, and
that the sanctified Victorians are never touched, and you'd never guess this
was a city looking to be at the forefront of massive economic and population
growth.

Depending on where you are looking, rents in the city are up from 30% all the
way to 130% since this time last year. And the city added a net total of a
whopping 269 new housing units in 2011. Everyone has heard stories -
entrepreneurs cashing out with Fuck You money, and can't buy a condo - because
none are on sale, at any price. We've also heard the stories, of the hated
dotcom yuppies going to view an apartment and bidding substantially above the
already outrageous asking price. It's getting a little crazy out there.

All the while the city has placed firm caps on the amount of new commercial
space that may be developed per year. Worse yet, the city has placed
restrictions even on _where_ residential and commercial development can happen
- pretty much exclusively in SoMa, which accounts for 0.8 square miles of the
total 49 square miles of land in SF.

Meanwhile the other 45 square miles (minus the Presidio and Golden Gate Park)
are full of low-density housing that is completely barred from building
upwards to accommodate the massive influx of population. The 3-story Victorian
House is holy, and must not be sullied by... well, more people living there,
rents be damned.

And what's with using Twitter to recolonize crack row? Of all the businesses
you can try to import to bring more "desirable" traffic to the area, you had
to pick the one that caters all meals internally and has every imaginable perk
already in-house? This is supposed to bring new businesses to the area? Not to
mention the area's massive homelessness and drug abuse problem is not due to
_lack_ of legitimate business traffic, but rather the presence of numerous
humanitarian aid organizations, none of whom are going to be moving any time
soon (nor should they, nor would it be politically feasible to force them to).
The only thing this half-assed plan will ensure is Twitter employees
scrambling to make sure they have secured parking at the new office.

~~~
sneak
Not to disparage your entirely valid argument, but:

> Everyone has heard stories - entrepreneurs cashing out with Fuck You money,
> and can't buy a condo - because none are on sale, at any price.

That's not what "Fuck You money" means.

"Fuck you money" is buying the entire block and tearing down all the other
condos and then buying the real estate company and firing the realtor who
showed it just for giggles.

It's an entirely different order of magnitude from "wealthy" or even "filthy
rich".

It's the ability to say "fuck you" to literally anyone— with impunity.

Very few people in the tech community have reached this level. Indeed, very
few _humans_ have, from any sector.

~~~
freehunter
_buying the entire block_

You can only buy what is for sale. If it's not for sale, at any price, you
can't buy it no matter how much money you have.

~~~
khuey
Not to mention that even if you could buy the block, San Francisco almost
certainly wouldn't let you tear it down.

------
bennyfreshness
I'm an engineer who just moved here to the Mission where I'm paying this
exorbitant amount of money in rent mentioned in the article. The people in my
building (of which 4 of 7 units are Googlers, I'm not one) battle a group of
locals who congregate in the park drinking and doing drugs over noise,
parking, trash, and various other complaints almost daily. We just want a safe
living environment close to our workplace. I don't feel sorry for these low
budget semi homeless drunks but hope the gentrification raises property value
substantially for the home-owning locals who've been here for years. Its sad
other long time locals who rent are also being forced out, but still can't
help but think the process is cleaning up the city. Gentrification just never
had a bad connotation to me and still doesn't now that I"m seeing it on the
front lines.

~~~
olegious
Not sure why you're being voted down. SF is a crazy place where
"gentrification" is a bad word.

~~~
Symmetry
Presumably they're objecting to "hope the gentrification raises property value
substantially for the home-owning locals who've been here for years". Which
presumably was the opposite of what the poster meant to write.

~~~
bps4484
is the opposite what he meant to write? It was always my assumption that he
was correct; gentrification raises property values, so "home-owning locals"
make money off of their real estate value going up, while renters will be
potentially pushed out (or stay and pay more in rent). Am I missing something?

------
patio11
In which San Francisco makes markets illegal and then is surprised when they
fail to clear.

There's a good discussion to be had, somewhere, about the implications of
rapid productivity growth in the tech sector versus the rest of the country,
what this will do to relative equality of outcomes as measured by income
("destroy it utterly"), and the social consequences of that. But I find myself
incapable of discussing that vis-a-vis San Fran real estate because that is,
fundamentally, a political problem.

~~~
pchristensen
The discussion has in fact been had by Matthew Yglesias in his Monexbox column
on Slate.com, and by Ryan Avent in his book The Gated City:
[http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single-
ebook/dp/B005...](http://www.amazon.com/Gated-City-Kindle-Single-
ebook/dp/B005KGATLO/)

Basically, development restrictions in economically productive areas raise
prices and drive out productive workers to less productive areas, improving
standard of living for those who move but lowering overall wages and
productivity for the country as a whole.

It is an entirely political problem and the only reason it's such an issue in
SF is the economic productivity there.

------
DanielBMarkham
I don't care much for reporting that tries to heat up a conflict where none
must exist. There are a lot of underlying assumptions and hidden prejudices in
that piece, the most visible was equating black people and poor people. Then
there was a cry for maintaining diversity -- it seems that having smart people
from all over the world working together to change the planet isn't diverse
enough for the NYT. It looks to me like they need appropriate ratios of
commonly-recognized political groups. Very poor reasoning.

I've long since given up trying to understand San Francisco politics. It's an
extremely dynamic city, but at the same time there's a lot of folks there who
consider themselves progressive that are hanging on to 50-year-old ideas from
the 1960s. A lot of things are "untouchable." In fact, I'd go so far as to say
the city has a huge conservative bent, it's just not expressed by what we
would consider conservatives. Don't change things!

I know the neighborhood that's mentioned, and I wish Twitter the best of luck.
Hopefully a new administration doesn't take over in a year or two and start
undoing all the special perks that lured them there.

California desperately needs Silicon Valley and the spillover into SF. I
sincerely hope they keep advancing policies that continue the growth and not
go down the road of trying to pick apart each little thing that starts going
right.

~~~
wpietri
I'm in favor of the Twitter perks; that neighborhood has needed help for a
long time. But I think you dismiss too lightly the displacement of people and
the substantial rich/poor divide in this city.

The problem isn't the NYT's reasoning. They just have different values than
you do. To some extent I agree with them; San Francisco has definitely gotten
less diverse. We don't get smart people from "all over the planet". We get
them mainly from whitebread America, Europe, and certain parts of East and
South Asia. They're generally well-educated and well off. A lot of people who
have been in SF for generations are getting priced out of the city, and that
is disproportionately affecting black and Latino residents.

One can legitimately say, "so what?" But it's not irrational to dislike that.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_We get them mainly from whitebread America, Europe, and certain parts of East
and South Asia._

I.e., they come from half the planet (Europe + USA + China + India == about
3.5 billion people) rather than the whole planet.

You are correct that the NYT has different values, and it's important to
recognize what those values are: they view certain privileged [1] groups as
deserving of being statistically represented in SF. Their underlying value
system is basically corporatism.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism>

(The term "corporatism" is only peripherally related to modern LLCs. While a
modern LLC may be a corporation, so are "black people", "poor people" and
"long time residents" in the sense that the NYT is using them.)

~~~
wpietri
Well, most of them come from the well-off portions of those places, so it's a
lot less than half the planet. But yes, you seem to get my point, which is
that the population in SF is not representative of the globe at large.

I guess if you wave your hands some you could call it a flavor or corporatism.
But I think your description of those groups as privileged is pretty rich.
From a certain angle it's technically correct, but in a way that aggressively
misses the point. You might as well call them lucky duckies.

~~~
yummyfajitas
There are about 2^(6 billion) subgroups of humanity. The NYT consistently
chooses a small subset of those subgroups to focus on, and to give moral
consideration to.

The particular grouping chosen by the NYT is just an arbitrary moral choice to
privilege the {race == black} subgroup over (for example) the {SSN % 7 == 2}
subgroup.

~~~
wpietri
Gosh, you've figured it out. That choice is entirely arbitrary and random, and
has absolutely nothing to do with history or morality.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I didn't claim their grouping choices had nothing to do with history or
morality, nor did I claim randomness. I specifically said that the NYT's
choice of which groups deserve privilege is based on an "arbitrary _moral_
choice".

~~~
wpietri
Yes, the choices are moral choices. But by calling it arbitrary, I presume you
mean: "Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or
system."

If they are without reason or system, then the can hardly be derived from
existing moral systems (that, is morality), or the application of those moral
systems to (and lessons learned from) historical circumstance (history).

But by all means carry on with your aggressive point-missing. Would you care
to pick this particular nit? Or perhaps a different one?

------
siculars
/rant

Excuse me if I don't cry for SF. Come to NYC and we'll chat over a slice of
Lombardi's. Joking aside, this is the kind of garbage divisive reporting that
plays both ends against the middle. But actually against each other. Take a
look at Detroit. Perhaps these people might consider authorizing new
commercial and residential building permits to add supply to the market. But
noooooo. Don't touch the historical architecture!

When did it become a crime to be successful in this country? Since when is it
a bad thing to make enterprise, move the ball forward and create? You want
equality? Build more mixed income housing with all that tax revenue you will
receive from all those six figure employees living in your city. Don't ghetto
your city like certain parts of NYC by concentrating low income housing.
Spread it around. But hey, who am I kidding, rich people won't let that
happen.

Everyone needs to give a bit.

Sickening.

------
pianoben
Anecdotally speaking, at my last job I was positively priced out of all decent
San Francisco neighborhoods while making $80k per year - it's simply not
possible to compete with the Googlers and Apple folks making three times what
you are. One showing I went to near Alamo Square had about 30 people viewing,
and over 12 applied - it was a dingy one-bedroom, but you'd never know from
the crowd or from the asking price.

I shudder to think of the non-techies who aren't in rent-controlled
apartments; this boom will be exceedingly unjust to them.

~~~
bhickey
Rent control is screwing things up in the first place.

For example, without the option to end leases landlord's can't empty a
building, demolish it and rebuild with more units. This imposes an artificial
constraint on supply. Demand isn't particularly elastic so prices rise.

Meanwhile, the price ceiling encourages overconsumption amongst the rent
control population. Kids are off to college -- why downgrade from a 3-bedroom?
There's simply no incentive to do so. This further limits supply.

If you want to see rents fall, repeal rent control, repeal Prop 13 and allow
construction.

~~~
geoffschmidt
Do you really think the main constraint on supply comes from rent control and
not zoning limitations? In SF there is a strong desire to preserve the
historical character of the neighborhoods (agree or disagree as you like, but
the political will is there) and I think that's the root reason why it's
difficult to demolish buildings and rebuild them with more units, not the
mechanics of rent control.

In any event, even in a rent controlled building, you absolutely can terminate
all of your tenant's leases and kick them out, upgrade the property, condoize
it, and sell the condos (Ellis Act.) The only restriction is that you must
sell the units, not rent them.

(speaking as someone who, as a side project, is in fact building high density
residential units in SF)

~~~
rdl
Zoning is primary, but without rent control, the Tenderloin would be a lot
better (convert the SROs into reasonable rentals). Of course, getting rid of
the enablers of homelessness would also be necessary.

~~~
geoffschmidt
It's not rent control that keeps SROs around - there are separate SRO
controls. You're not allowed to eliminate SRO beds without building
replacement beds in another part of the city (or paying into a fund to cover
the cost of someone else doing it, and it's a significant fee.)

Many of the people in SROs have substance abuse or mental health problems or
other disabilities, and most (?) SRO tenants are paying their rent in federal
housing assistance vouchers (which is why SROs can be so profitable - the
government pays you a high price to house people that otherwise wouldn't be
welcomed on the rental market, housing discrimination laws notwithstanding.)

Any zoning plan has to make space for this population somewhere in the city.
If you let people demolish SRO beds, you're just going to discover that you
have to build new ones at public expense.

------
alanh
This article repeatedly expresses concerns that “blacks” may be pushed out of
the City.

This struck me as kind of odd. Why the repeated mention of just blacks? Is
that a racist statement? If not, would it be racist to otherwise imply that
blacks (and apparently just blacks) cannot compete with skilled, high-wage
workers?

At the bottom of the article, credit is given to what sounds like a black
woman for being a contributing reporter. The article is written by what looks
like a Japanese person to me. Now I am tempted to think that it’s not negative
racism on display here so much as self-interest on behalf of the contributing
reporter (and I’m puzzled as to why the lede author turned this piece in as-
is).

Basically, I’m not sure what (if anything) to make of this, and am interested
in people’s thoughts.

~~~
jfc
Here's what I make of it:

I have a big problem with equating blacks to poor people, mostly because it
makes blacks monolithic, as if all blacks are poor. This isn't the case, even
if you limit your analysis to the SF area.

Consider how ridiculous it is to equate an entire ethnic group with poverty,
or wealth for that matter--there are wealthy and poor people across all
demographics. Far better for the NYT to have said poorer residents, or some
such like.

It does seem the mayor specifically mentioned blacks (could be a political
calculus or real concern), but the reporters also referenced them separately,
vaguely. Either way, the characterization of blacks in this article was done
poorly.

You asked if this is racism; probably something like implicit bias -
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversive_racism>.

Also: it seems you thought that the contributor's name (Malia) somehow
indicates that she is black. A google search shows otherwise.

~~~
rdl
In San Francisco city itself, black and poor are highly correlated, for a
variety of historical reasons. Most of the long term middle and upper middle
class black residents in the Bay Area are in the East Bay. There are fairly
concentrated areas of SF which are low income, low development, and primarily
black (HP, Bayview) and some areas which became more developed (Fillmore). Mid
market and tenderloin have gotten a bit more developed and more diverse
(mainly in that poor Arabs and SE Asians moved in 10-15y ago).

Economics and race in SF is really complex.

------
tsotha
I don't know where this guy has been. Unless you make $150k plus or are
already in a rent-controlled apartment, you were priced out of San Francisco a
decade ago. Between restrictions on development and rent control, there's
almost no new rental stock to satisfy demand.

~~~
impendia
I lived in SF on 60K and knew a ton of people that did the same (or made
less). We all lived with roommates.

~~~
tsotha
Well, okay. But then what was your household income?

------
rgc4
Maybe the city planning commission that decides how many apartments can be
built, shouldn't be stocked with current property owners whose wealth is tied
to the artificially low supply of apartments in SF? Just a thought.

------
impendia
I lived in San Francisco for two years, in the Dogpatch, close to the 22nd
Street Caltrain.

For one, construction was a regular sight in my neighborhood. (e.g. north of
17th Street) But I think it would be an ideal location for much further
construction. There were a bunch of abandoned industrial buildings in my
neighborhood. Either rehab them, or tear them down and build six-story
apartment buildings. You can leave the existing Victorians intact while still
adding a lot of housing stock.

------
rdl
I'm looking at the last cheap parts of the Peninsula and trying to figure out
how to gentrify -- East Palo Alto and parts of Menlo Park and unincorporated
San Mateo County.

This basically happened a decade or two ago with Foster City.

It seems quite an arbitrage opportunity that a house which goes for $2-2.5mm
in Palo Alto goes for $300k in EPA just a mile or two away.

------
programnature
The tech community needs to become a lot more politically engaged.

Particularly where it counts: campaign contributions.

------
hemancuso
I'd like to see what Twitter would do with the expected 2,600 employees. Hard
to see that happening unless they dramatically change the product.

Then again, I am one of the few who still strongly suspects that company will
leave a large hole in the ground in a few years.

------
LargeWu
Forgive me if I don't feel sympathetic to the plight of the poor programmers
in SF. Everybody flocks to SF because that's where all the venture money is
at. Which is just fine; you want to hit it big with yet another social
startup? That's great for you, but I'm not going to feel sorry for you if you
don't win the lottery. There are plenty of other places in this country that
are vibrant, fun places to live that are also affordable and offer lots of
opportunity. I'll enjoy SF as a tourist, thank you.

~~~
ryguytilidie
Sigh. This just REEKS of jealousy while genuinely making no sense. The article
is about the non programmers of SF getting pushed out of affordable living by
the programmers. Having the response, "well boo hoo, how could I feel bad for
these programmers" feels like you either didn't read the article or just
wanted to feel better about yourself. Don't get comments like this at all.

------
shasty
This is the New York Times which on a near daily basis features articles with
titles like "What you can get for 2 million dollars" (a nice closet in a bad
neighborhood) as if thats a bargain.

Expecting sanity in either the SF or NYC market is a waste of emotion. If you
can't afford it (and you can't) dont live there. Your a programmer not a rock
star.

~~~
patio11
The not-so-subtle subtext of this conversation is that the last line will be
"You are a New York Times reporter, not a programmer, so you should not expect
to be able to live in New York."

------
twinturbo
This is why I've decided to not participate in San Francisco.

