
Airbnb rentals cut deep into SF housing stock, report says - lladnar
http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/sf-report-says-units-rented-for-short-term-reduce-long-term-housing/Content?oid=2929888
======
kqr2
SF also needs to study how its own city policy affects housing stock.

From
[http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/12/23/sf_now_has_more_tha...](http://sf.curbed.com/archives/2014/12/23/sf_now_has_more_than_50000_units_in_the_housing_pipeline.php)
:

Although SF has 50000 housing units in the pipeline, it supposedly won't be
completed for decades.

It takes a very long time to complete a housing project:

    
    
      The median time of completion for projects that have 
      been finished in the past year is 43 months from the 
      time of first filing with SF Planning to opening
    

As a concrete example, from
[http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San-
Fran...](http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/How-San-Francisco-
creates-its-own-housing-crisis-5139869.php)

It took 6 years just for _approvals_ to convert a closed down Kentucky Fried
Chicken restaurant to about 10 units of housing.

~~~
Chevalier
And the weirdest thing is when you wonder who the hell was protesting the
approvals. NOBODY thinks a KFC is superior to a modern apartment building.
(And even if one did, you could just allocate the first floor of all buildings
to commercial leases and let KFC move in where it wants.)

As far as I can tell, the only obstacle to new construction are existing
property owners who fear that the appreciation of their old property's value
will diminish as supply finally expands to meet demand. While they're probably
right in the very short run, I'm pretty sure that turning SF into Copenhagen
-- that is, 5-7 floor buildings, narrow streets dedicated to pedestrians and
bikes, mixed usage between residential and commercial purposes, etc. -- would
DRAMATICALLY improve long-term property values.

So who the hell is fighting to keep SF car-dependent, dirty, old, and
sprawling? I just can't understand the resistance to new construction.

\- - - - -

Edit: To answer my own question, aside from property owners, we know that car
owners are ferociously defensive of parking minimums and low density. The idea
is to ensure constant free parking anywhere they go and to discourage traffic
they think slows them down.

Trying not to sound as contemptuous as I feel, such people are making very
basic errors in logic when they believe pedestrians add to, rather than
subtract from, automobile congestion. Also, literally this entire country has
been razed to accommodate automobile interests with the partial exception of
the urban cores of New York and San Francisco. One would think that if driving
were so important, such people might decide to live in an existing sprawling
strip mall rather than insist on turning SF into one.

~~~
x0x0
Well, many people are living in the housing that would have to be torn down,
and replaced with non-rent controlled housing. They certainly oppose it.
Others don't care to live across from heavy construction for a couple years,
or see already heavily oversubscribed parking and public transport in their
neighborhoods get significantly worse. Try getting a seat on bart at 24th st
for most of the day. Or sometimes even getting on the busses in upper haight
during commute hours.

As for cars, well, the difference between nyc and sf is that in the former,
you can live without a car, and in sf, it is very difficult to live an adult
life without a car. To list off many examples re sf: there are huge holes in
public transportation, both temporally, safety wise (particularly for a petite
woman), and geographically; there is not the same delivery culture for
takeout, or laundry; grocery stores are far away from many places and don't
deliver, though instacart helps some; there often aren't gyms or other
services in reasonable (10 min) walking distance for large chunks of the city.
We lived car-free in nyc and needed at least one car in sf. And once you have
that car, and commit to the $600-$800/mo it costs, then you want to use it.
Part of the reason to put up with occasional public transport headaches in nyc
is you're saving the cost of a car. My take on public transport in sf is it
would be worth it if the idiots that run what is, after all, a very rich city
got their act together and improved public transport first rather than
attempting to push people to not use cars in the vain hope that eventually
muni and bart may be improved.

ps -- muni is wildly expensive compared to any other competent city, plus very
slow

ps2 -- I dare say that most people who will disagree with my contention about
transport in sf either haven't lived here or are young, able bodied, live in
one of the few neighborhoods that are well-served, don't have kids, and often
eat out or at work

~~~
ripley12
"muni is wildly expensive compared to any other competent city"

This is just so not true. Transit is much more expensive in both Tokyo and
London.

Agreed about SF transit being awful though.

~~~
x0x0
combining the end-user and city-paid prices, it is

see, eg [http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-muni-death-
spiral/C...](http://www.sfweekly.com/sanfrancisco/the-muni-death-
spiral/Content?oid=2176739)

    
    
       • Your Muni is slow. With an average vehicle speed of 8.1 mph, it is far and 
       away the slowest major urban transit system in the nation. While some of 
       this can be blamed on San Francisco's congestion and density, there are 
       myriad methods of speeding up service other agencies have adopted that Muni 
       hasn't. This isn't just an inconvenience for Muni's declining ridership; 
       it's a major financial drain on a beleaguered system. Slow vehicle speeds 
       force Muni to spend more money to provide less service. Muni's lethargy is 
       literally costing it millions.
       
       • For these and other reasons, Muni spends more to operate its vehicles than 
       virtually any comparable transit agency. For every mile Muni runs a bus in 
       this city, it spends $19.21; comparable agencies nationwide pay between $10 
       and $13. For every mile Muni runs a light-rail vehicle, it throws down 
       $24.37; comparable rail services spend between $12 and $22.

~~~
ripley12
That is an interesting link, thanks. I do wish it was better about providing
sources though.

------
dottedmag
Welcome to Californian People's Republic.

