
Gentrification's Price: S.F. Moves: Yuppies In, the Poor Out (1985) - hyt7u
http://articles.latimes.com/1985-04-03/news/mn-28445_1_san-francisco-s-skyline
======
epicureanideal
For anyone who is interested in a CPI inflation adjusted view of those
numbers, "$900-$1000" for rent in North Beach in 1985 is supposedly worth
about $2100-2400 now.

Their combined salary of $30,000 per year would now be about $71,000.

[https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm](https://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm)

However, the article says "$900-$1000" was for "an apartment" without
specifying the number of rooms. It seems reasonable that it might've been a 2
bedroom apartment.

~~~
jaysonelliot
It probably was a two bedroom. When I moved to SF in 1994, I was sharing a
four-bedroom on South Van Ness that cost $1200 total.

The next big rent spike came around '98 or so, as the dot com boom was in full
swing. Rents didn't only shoot up, it got so that there was no housing left to
be had. You could show up to an open rental with stellar credit and
references, only to have someone else offer the landlord 25% above the asking
rent, and pay the entire first year in advance.

~~~
beamatronic
And you had to go through MetroRent or RentTech

------
madrox
I often wonder about how sustainable SF’s growth is. Between the issues with
housing, rent control, NIMBYism, and poor infrastructure, there has to be a
price tag at which this can’t continue. I live in the city, and the quality of
living here is terrible compared to other cities.

The only thing SF has going for it is the people, but sooner or later the
right social pressures could cause a mass exodus, and I wonder what those
pressures look like.

~~~
maxkimmel
Your question gets asked often: How long can this continue?

And the answer is: It will continue as long as people are willing to pay the
rent.

I understand from your post that you are fed up with the high rent and the low
quality of living. But the most important part of what you said is the fact
that you are still willing to pay, and you are still willing to stay, despite
all of the disadvantages. In other words, you have decided (whether you like
it or not) that in your case the advantages of living in SF outweigh all of
the disadvantages.

And there are many others like you. You are all collectively voting for things
to continue the way they are.

Making it stop would require you (or others like you) to decide the trade-off
isn't worth it.

~~~
madrox
My girlfriend and I decided in January that the trade off is no longer worth
it. Now it’s just about timing.

While I hear what you’re saying, I’m musing more specifically on what that
function looks like. I understand “it will continue as long as it can” but
looking for a less rhetorical answer.

------
somerando
I don't see what is so wrong with gentrification. As the economy expands and
people become more prosperous, it restores blighted parts of the city to their
full potential.

I also think that rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property
owner. Other than making sure that there is no discrimination, and that
properties aren't fire traps, government should get out of the way.

~~~
nothrabannosir
_> rent control is disrespectful to the rights of the property owner._

Is there an inherent right of way for property owners over renters on the
residential moral crossroads? If you’ve grown up in a neighbourhood, raised
your own kids in that neighbourhood, spent time in _and on_ the neighbourhood,
don’t you deserve some respect? People without the fiscal wherewithal (nor
social impetus) to buy, but who spent effort safe guarding their community,
organising events for locals, tending to parks, churches; they created the
neighbourhood. They added value to every single property. But God forbid they
were not raised to “buy”: make way for the Propery Owner!

I find this incongruous with what I’ve seen around me time and time again.
People who’ve suffered through the hardest times of an area get pushed out
when it does better. They deserved it the most, but got hoodwinked for the
newer, flashier wind.

Not unlike a spouse who stays with their partner through a tough disease,
depression, or poverty, only to be dumped for a more beautiful and
opportunistic competitor when the hardship has sailed.

I’m not a staunch anti gentrifier (hell, _I_ gentrify!), but I find using the
word “respect” a bridge too far.

~~~
telchar
On rent control and gentrification I don't have a strong opinion right now.
But I'd argue that if one has the means to buy but chooses not to, I can't
feel bad for them if they get pushed out by rising rents. Buying a house is a
good way to establish roots in a community. For those who can't afford to buy
I feel that the argument that gentrification is harmful has some merit though,
of course if the renter has started in a bad neighborhood I wouldn't think it
would typically be that expensive to buy.

To use your analogy, if you don't put a ring on it you might lose it [your
partner]. At least if one is divorced there is likely some alimony.

I suspect much of the real problem with gentrification involves the legacy of
redlining and other abuses of vulnerable populations, like predatory contract
loans and subprime mortgages. If populations such as inner-city blacks weren't
systematically prevented from purchasing property in past decades
gentrification would probably be much less a hot-button issue.

------
madrox
If you want to see the latest in the gentrification war, check out the San
Francisco subreddit. On the one hand, it’s everyone complaining about the
nuisance of the on demand scooters; on the other, it’s people complaining
about the needles and human feces. It may have been about poor vs yuppie in
1985, but it’s a culture war now.

~~~
tlrobinson
Wow...

> Last week I saw a similar report of a man filling up syringes with blood and
> throwing them at people walking by

[https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/8hj7j7/man_ju...](https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/8hj7j7/man_juggling_used_syringes/dyk8w2b/)

~~~
DrScump
One unconfirmed anecdote does not a trend make.

~~~
ng12
You're right. But when that anecdote doesn't surprise anyone (look at the
tongue-in-cheek responses) you may have a problem.

------
FartyMcFarter
Assuming that the housing supply is finite, the poorest person living in a
city is also displacing a different potential resident, just as much as a
medium income person, right? Yet gentrification is always portrayed as the
"richer" people trampling on poor people. Go figure.

~~~
closeparen
>potential resident

Gentrification and displacement are distinct from the exclusion of potential
residents. To get someone's home transferred to you, you generally have to
outspend them, so the gentrifier is essentially always richer than than the
displaced person (though there could be corner cases with similar means but
different willingness to spend on housing, etc).

