
Nearly 90% of San Franciscans cannot afford a median-priced home in the city - pfarnsworth
http://blog.sfgate.com/ontheblock/2016/08/18/nearly-90-percent-of-san-franciscans-cannot-afford-a-median-priced-home-in-the-city/
======
cheriot
The implication of these articles seems to be a very American idea that people
NEED a house. Condo? Won't do. Rent and invest in something more diversified?
Crazy talk.

I'm American. I just don't understand why people here think so much space is
so necessary. Just because we had that luxury for the last 75 years doesn't
mean we always will. It's not even a bad thing.

~~~
surfmike
As an American who recently moved back from Oslo, the biggest difference I
notice is that family-friendly condos with greenspace are much harder to find
in America, at least on the SF Peninsula.

It's the norm in Oslo to live in an apartment or rowhouse, but usually with
very generous green courtyard space that let kids roam around and play. In the
SF peninsula, most apartment buildings either take up the whole lot or fill
most of their undeveloped space with parking lots.

~~~
lucaspiller
It's the same here in Vilnius. The city has quite a small population, but is
quite large for its size. Around virtually all apartment buildings (outside
the city center) there is a lot of green space - at least it's one thing the
Soviets got right!

------
brador
The solution is to vote someone in who will loosen the law around building
homes. More homes = more supply = reduced price (assuming fresh supply
outpaces fresh demand).

This is not magic. This can be fixed. It needs the knowledge, organisation,
and will to fix it.

~~~
mjevans
'loosening' isn't even the beginning of the solution.

Build baby build; I would actually love to see this solved by taxing out
building uses that are no longer congruent to the density of the surrounding
area.

Historical landmarks could become immune if they are deeded over to public
trusts as a form of museum or park.

------
usaar333
Ok, yes it is expensive, but I'm failing to understand how incomes lower than
$270,000 are insufficient to cover $6,740 of housing costs. At $270k, even
ignoring the large income tax break on mortgage interest, you have $92k/year
left over to spend, a pretty large buffer.

Looking at the linked report, it just multiplied the monthly housing costs
(for all markets) by 40 to get the minimum annual qualifying income. But how
is putting a max of 30% of your income toward housing true everywhere?

~~~
pfarnsworth
28-30% of monthly income is one of the ratios that is looked at when you apply
and you can't exceed it if you're trying to get a mortgage. If you exceed that
it's a no-brainer that you will get denied the mortgage.

~~~
eloisant
From my experience that 30% is strict when you have low income (because you
don't have much left-over) but for high income you can go a bit higher.

But it might depends on the country and stuff.

------
CalRobert
Of course, it's worth noting that this wouldn't be such a big issue if nearly
every city surrounding SF weren't hell-bent on remaining (depending on your
perspective) either 'quiet leafy suburban utopia' or 'dystopian car-choked
sprawling asphalt hellscape'.

Maybe some of the other cities nearby should pick up their fair share of
residents.

~~~
WalterSear
The part of SF I live in hasn't seen the massive price and rent hikes that
people are up in arms about. There has been some increase in the last six
months, but before that, over the decade, it's been relativeley slow and
stable. Why? Because it's unfashionable.

It's hard not to see the entire 'crisis' as a bunch of techbros and hipsters
squabbling over the same four city blocks in the mission.

~~~
nameless912
> techbros and hipsters

Yeah, this is entirely accurate in my experience. I've lost a couple friends
to the SF hype train, and all of them are complaining because the apartments
that are walking distance from their offices cost too damn much.

Bitch, I live 25 minutes away from my office and have a 2 bedroom townhouse
for the same price you pay to rent a spare bedroom. Granted, I live in San
Diego, not San Francisco, but still.

~~~
CalRobert
I did that in SD, and drivers nearly killed me while I cycled to work on a
daily basis. It was too damn hot too.

Great beer, though, and I did really enjoy my neighborhood (South Park) when I
didn't have to leave it.

~~~
nameless912
> cycled

 _THAT_ is your mistake. I would die if I tried to cycle to work every day. I
take a car like a barbarian.

------
quantumhobbit
How long until tech companies need to start offering free housing to attract
talent to move to SF?

Even with the higher salaries, high enough to afford the same caliber home,
the stress of dealing with that market is a turn off. What if it turns out to
be a bubble and the million dollar shack you bought is only really worth
$200k. You could be trapped with an underwater mortgage easily. Not that I
know if it is a bubble or not, but that is a large amount of risk that the
employer is expecting the employee to take.

Which is why I wonder if you tried to shift the risk. Say, give up 30%(the
supposed standard amount spent on housing) of salary in exchange for the
company providing housing.

~~~
throwaway049
"the stress of dealing with that market" I could easily imagine a compensation
package where the employer provides/pays for some kind of concierge-like
service to take care of this for you. I would be stunned if there was more
than token provision or uptake of company-provided accommodation.

------
maximilianch
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how economics works. Lots of people want
it? It's going to be expensive. Nobody wants it? It's going to be cheap. I,
too, would like to live in a huge mansion in Beverly Hills for $3 a week. But
should I complain that I can't?

~~~
zasz
The other half of how it works is that when demand is high, supply should
increase to meet it. The reason supply remains constricted and hence prices
high has nothing to do with economics, and everything to do with NIMBYists
hostile to newcomers.

~~~
kyledrake
The other thing is that, as this article points out, this isn't just pure
"supply and demand", because the government is pouring subsidies on property
ownership, pushing interest rates to 50-year lows, and offering tax incentives
for owning homes. None of which gets passed to the majority of renters who end
up paying the higher rates. It's a very good point and it's worth talking
about.

