
Can a new mayor fix San Francisco’s housing and homelessness problems? - hvo
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2018/06/02/can-a-new-mayor-fix-san-franciscos-housing-and-homelessness-problems
======
fosk
The Economist is ignoring the fact that the city administration in San
Francisco is now extremely busy, and I mean 24/7 busy, cracking down on
electric scooters that - unlike needles, human excrements, tents and substance
abuse - are a real problem that needs a resolution ASAP.

As soon as this insurmountable plague has been eradicated, the city
administration will finally have time to talk again about the things that
matter, like: Should Vaillancourt Fountain be finally removed or not? Or after
introducing the soda tax, is it finally time for a burrito tax? Of course
really anything that would prevent them from fixing the real problems that are
affecting SF.

SF needs its own Rudy Giuliani and its own Broken Windows policy[1].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory)

~~~
icey
> The Economist is ignoring the fact that the city administration in San
> Francisco is now extremely busy, and I mean 24/7 busy, cracking down on
> electric scooters that - unlike needles, human excrements, tents and
> substance abuse - are a real problem that needs a resolution ASAP.

Don't discount the virtue signaling that's going on here. It's an election
year, and tech is still a reasonably good whipping boy for voters. Of all my
friends, the non-tech ones seem much more likely to vote than the tech ones.
Many of my tech friends in SF aren't even registered to vote here.

~~~
dvtrn
_Of all my friends, the non-tech ones seem much more likely to vote than the
tech ones_

Interesting. I realize I'm asking you to spitball, and that's fine
legitimately curious to hear something outside the box but why do you think
that is?

Seems to me an unlikely division when it comes to voter participation, or at
least a very unexpected one.

~~~
icey
I'm not sure, but it's been a little surprising to me as well. For the past
month any time I've had a conversation with someone who had an opinion about
politics and policies in SF, I've asked them if they have voted yet, or if
they're going to vote; and while nearly everyone has had an opinion, only two
people in tech out of probably two dozen have said yes. Of the remaining lot,
a bunch have said they never registered to vote for a variety of reasons ("I
forgot to", "Oh, I need to do that sometime", "I don't want my information
getting sold", "I still don't have a California driver's license", etc).

On the other hand, friends not in tech (much more varied population by job;
artists, food-service & bar industry, construction, medical) were much more
motivated to tell me not only what their opinions were, but how they were
voting (or had already voted) and why.

It's possible that this will change nearer to the mid-term, but it doesn't
seem like primary elections get people that excited.

It's a great question though, and I'll start asking more deeply about it
because I'm curious now as well!

~~~
Karrot_Kream
> I'm not sure, but it's been a little surprising to me as well.

When you have the income to:

1\. Rent a comfortable apartment pretty much anywhere in the Bay Area, without
fear of rising rent displacing you. (Keep rent within a third of your income)

2\. Pay for a private solution (Rideshare, Private commuter buses, tech
company shuttle) to the broken transportation infrastructure, dirty streets,
and the homeless problem of the Bay.

3\. Have a fiscal safety net in case something happens to your income.

4\. Have the insurance needed to withstand the occasional curve-balls of life.

then you've mostly averted the endemic problems of the Bay Area. SF's gov't is
incompetent, and private solutions have alleviated most of its systemic issues
for its moneyed classes. Of course people in tech won't be as motivated to
vote, they're insulated from all of the problems.

There's a growing sentiment (growing being an understatement, Google/Apple
buses have been smashed/blocked for years now) that tech's private market
solutions are priced to only help their own out. Until this perception
changes, they're going to want to vote with their rage.

~~~
closeparen
They’re priced to clear markets so that functioning goods and services are
actually available at their stated prices. Whereas for some reason populists
prefer public transit that’s uniformly abysmal and “affordable housing” that
no individual applicant has a reasonable chance of winning.

~~~
vkou
Public transit in cities that aren't SF is not 'uniformally abysmal.'

One of the reasons for it, is that in cities with working transit, both the
rich, and the poor, newcomers and decades-established people take the
bus/train. When people with influence are using public transit, it stops being
shit.

Pointing at Muni, and saying: "Look, you fools! Public transit doesn't work!"
is a bit like pointing at Somalia, circa 2009, and saying: "Look, you fools!
Rule of law doesn't work!"

~~~
closeparen
>One of the reasons for it

Another being that community organizers and concerned citizens were
sufficiently disenfranchised and disempowered that greedy developers obtained
permission to destroy pre-existing communities, open space, and neighborhood
character to create built environments that are dense enough for good public
transit to be cost-effective. In some cases, this happened more than 1000
years ago, so no one minds anymore.

>When people with influence are using public transit, it stops being shit.

Is there any evidence for this? Has a population ever actually forced its
leaders to ride shitty public transit, and subsequently seen a turnaround?

Most New York professionals rely on the subway, and it's falling apart anyway.

------
habosa
Here's something that has been making me scratch my head lately.

San Francisco has had a Democratic mayor from 1964-now. It's widely regarded
as the farthest left city in the country besides maybe Berkeley across the
bay. Most Democrats/leftists want to reduce wealth inequality and are
proponents of more taxation, welfare, etc.

Yet, San Francisco is one of the most economically unequal cities in this
country [0]. So what's up? Why have the city's Democrats been so unable to
help the poor if that's really something they believe in?

Democrats always say that if you elect the Republicans then the city will
belong to the rich and powerful. But that's what we have now...

Note: I am a Democrat, I already voted for SF mayor this cycle and I voted for
a Democratic candidate.

0: [https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-inequality-
in-...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02/15/income-inequality-in-the-bay-
area-is-among-nations-highest/)

~~~
rubicon33
> Note: I am a Democrat, I already voted for SF mayor this cycle and I voted
> for a Democratic candidate.

Would you mind elaborating on why you voted Democrat this time, after having
just pointed out that for the last ~60 years a democratic mayor failed to live
up to the virtues they espouse?

Not trying to be sarcastic. Generally curious if you considered republican but
decided against it for some reason... Or if you just hardline vote one way?

~~~
archagon
Is there an implementation of Republican policy anywhere that has reduced
wealth inequality?

~~~
rubicon33
True. It's almost as if politicians in general suck, and are unable to foster
an environment that promotes the wellbeing of their constituents.

------
raldi
Apartments -- of any height! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF:
[http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/](http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/)

Fix that, and you'll fix the city's housing and homelessness problems. It
wouldn't take ugly skyscrapers, just 4-to-6 story apartment buildings like
they have all over the most beautiful cities in Europe.

~~~
jacobolus
Yeah, it’s absurd. But good luck fixing it.

Whenever I tell people “the fix to SF’s housing problem is to upzone the
Sunset to allow 5-story buildings full of studio & 1-bedroom apartments with
little shops on the ground floor and improve transit, so that 20-somethings
aren’t forced to sleep in bunk-beds 5 people to a rented 2-bedroom house with
a back yard they don’t use and ride Ubers to work in heavy traffic”, they look
at me like I’m crazy, and insist the solution is stricter low-income housing
requirements and stronger protections against eviction.

This “world class city” is zoned to be a sleepy beach town.

Doesn’t help that the whole rest of the Bay Area is mostly zoned the same way.

~~~
DrScump

      with little shops on the ground floor
    

There's tons of vacant ground floor retail spaces already. In the Amazon and
on-demand era, viability is tough if you aren't moving primarily liquor and
lottery tickets. Even fast food isn't viable in much of SF (something like 9
McDonald's alone have closed in the last few years... including the
longstanding one at 3rd and Townsend).

~~~
jacobolus
Having mixed-use zoning doesn't mean every available space must be used for
retail.

------
seibelj
> _The city’s zoning laws are among the most restrictive in the country. They
> limit the height and density of new buildings and give local residents,
> often property owners, the ability to severely delay new development. Most
> of the city’s land area, particularly the posh western bits, is zoned for
> single-family homes, which now comprise one-third of its housing stock.
> Almost all the city’s land faces height limits of 40 feet, or about three
> storeys. The result is a city where rents are sky-high but buildings are
> not._

That is the central problem, and more government regulation on top of an
already insane amount of red tape and restrictions will not fix it. You must
allow developers to develop

------
crooked-v
No. Fixing the housing problem will take overriding the NIMBYs that are
limiting housing density, which the mayor doesn't have the power to do.

~~~
threatofrain
But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some
people aren't voting to their interests.

~~~
rsync
"But do landowners have majority voting power in SF? If not, then maybe some
people aren't voting to their interests."

It is implied (and sometimes expressed) that "NIMBY" outcomes in elections
like this are illegitimate and not "true" democratic outcomes.

I reject this notion. I am very much in favor of urban in-fill in San
Francisco and increased density in many parts of the city - but not at the
expense of democratic processes.

~~~
conanbatt
I can't verify with real numbers but my mental model is that votes on housing
are not representative of the population.

SF has a very high foreigner population that cant vote. They are moslty
renters. US renters also might not live enough time in the city to register,
be politically active, or end up moving due to lifestyle or economic reasons.
And of renters you will have those that have rent control, which end up in
tandem with owners about de-regularization.

Im sure that if you put up a vote landowners and rent-controlled renters have
a concentrated interest, and renters and foreigners dont have representation
_even if they are the majority_. If you took all renters of SF in the last 6
years you might get a higher number than landowners but they cannot fight it
politically.

So I adhere to the notion of unrepresentative democratic outcomes.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
The last time I registered to vote after moving I was able to do it the week I
moved, when I went to the DMV to get my driver's license. I would imagine it's
similar in the Bay Area.

I think it's reasonable not to allow foreigners to vote on local political
issues, just as we do on national ones. I wouldn't expect to have a say on
political issues in countries I'm not a citizen of. Otherwise you don't have
any skin in the game. You can just leave if you don't like the way things are
going.

I think part of the problem is there aren't clear policy proposals to solve
housing issues so it's hard to get people to support them. Plus the good land
is already developed so you'd have to use eminent domain or something to build
affordable housing.

~~~
conanbatt
> I think it's reasonable not to allow foreigners to vote on local political
> issues, just as we do on national ones. I wouldn't expect to have a say on
> political issues in countries I'm not a citizen of. Otherwise you don't have
> any skin in the game. You can just leave if you don't like the way things
> are going.

Countries have fought their independence fighting under the concept of "No
Taxation without representation".

Reasonable or not I can assure you that foreigners pay the highest rents, have
the least rent-control and less land in San Francisco.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
I'm not sure I agree about foreigners paying the highest rents, since it
really depends what groups of foreigners you're talking about. SV tech
employees? Maybe. Refugees? Definitely not. Rent control and land ownership
are probably true, but again, that's true of foreign nationals working
anywhere, not just in SF or the US.

I think we fundamentally disagree on whether foreigners should have a say in
local politics, so we can't really have a productive conversation on this
topic while we remain divided on that issue.

~~~
conanbatt
> I think we fundamentally disagree on whether foreigners should have a say in
> local politics, so we can't really have a productive conversation on this
> topic while we remain divided on that issue.

Not if you cop-out to Refugees, how many are they, 1000?

Rental prices increases affect everyone and affect every single foreigner
migrating into the bay are. It also affects people from other states, and
those also cannot vote. When the situation becomes untenable they leave the
city.

The implementation of democracy can never be absolutely representative,
anywhere, and in this situation that 'leaky implementation' is obvious.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
If you're a citizen you can vote just by proving you live in the district you
want to vote in. The only people being excluded are non-citizens who I don't
think should have the same say in local politics as citizens because they can
return to their home country if they don't like the effects of the policies
they help to enact.

~~~
crazcarl
I guess that makes sense on the national level, but couldn't you say that same
thing about citizens voting in local politics? They can just move to a
different city or state. I don't see a difference right away, but I'm
interested in another take on it as far as where the line should be drawn on
who gets to vote or not.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Yeah, I think that's a fair criticism. I guess to be logically consistent I'd
have to be on board with not letting people vote unless they've lived in an
area long enough or own property or something (requiring property ownership
seems like a bad idea). I'm not sure how I feel about that though. I guess one
thing I can think of is that if you're a citizen you at least nominally share
many American values, which is not necessarily true for someone who is just
here for career reasons.

~~~
pm90
Your reasoning doesn't make any sense. The criteria for people to have a voice
in local politics shouldn't be a test as to whether they share in "American"
values, whatever that means. If you had all those neo-Nazis who marched in
Charlottsville move to SF tomorrow, who are US citizens but presumably
(hopefully?) don't share in American values in your view, they would have the
ability to vote in local elections.

People who pay rent and establish a residence should have a voice in their
local(city) elections. Full Stop. Immigrants were allowed limited voting
rights in State elections until the 1920's when very anti-immigrant sentiments
lead to laws that prohibit that kind of voting.

------
joshe
I hadn't decided who to vote for, this helps. There is no more urgent problem
in the bay area than housing and there is no way to fix it other than by
building more housing.

London Breed for mayor it is.

~~~
staticautomatic
FYI Breed skipped out on practically all of the mayoral debates with no
compunction whatsoever.

------
mchannon
I suspect, as in Vancouver, a lot of foreign-originated dirty money is getting
parked in SF real estate, where the structures sit vacant.

One of Vancouver's innovative approaches was a special tax assessment on
vacant structures.

I honestly wonder what percentage of SF, including its commercial office
space, is simply a vehicle for money laundering. Switzerland and the Cayman
Islands have nothing on Uncle Sam when it comes to real estate opacity.

~~~
pcwalton
> I suspect, as in Vancouver, a lot of foreign-originated dirty money is
> getting parked in SF real estate, where the structures sit vacant.

That's not the case. Vacancy rates in San Francisco are very low, at 3.6%:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2015/04/16/san-
fran...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2015/04/16/san-francisco-
tops-forbes-2015-list-of-worst-cities-for-renters/#4ec2bab362fa)

You can see this in the rent-to-buy ratios. While high in the Bay Area, it's
nowhere near the out-of-control bubble levels of Vancouver and, to a lesser
extent, Toronto. Housing prices are high in the Bay Area because people
_actually_ need to live here.

~~~
mchannon
Those appear to be vacancy rates calculated from submissions by landlords, but
what about absentee owners who don't want to be landlords?

I don't think we're measuring the real figure of merit here.

~~~
jimrandomh
There are plenty of companies that will take care of finding tenants, doing
maintenance and generally handling landlord responsibilities, in exchange for
a cut of the rent. Since the rent is quite a lot of money, it would be crazy
to leave a building vacant unless you're planning to spend time in it.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
But people do it in high rent areas like London, NYC, and Vancouver.

~~~
eanzenberg
It doesn't make it any less dumb. It's the difference of ~80k / year for free
you leave on the table.

~~~
mchannon
It's not dumb, and it's not for free.

If you robbed a bank and had a nice big pile o' cash, how smart would you be
to put it in a bank and collect interest on it?

You jeopardize (or devalue) the asset by trying to play landlord. By leaping
after $80k/year, you may cost yourself $500k/year appreciation in the asset.

~~~
selectodude
>You jeopardize (or devalue) the asset by trying to play landlord. By leaping
after $80k/year, you may cost yourself $500k/year appreciation in the asset.

Unless your tenant literally burns the building down and you don't have
insurance, I'm not sure how this works.

~~~
hcknwscommenter
A building that would otherwise be subject to rent control or other tenant
protections is worth less than the same building that is empty of tenants. By
leaping after 80K/year you can massively decrease the value of an empty
building, or a building that is likely to soon empty, or a building that can
be condo converted without Ellis acting anyone.

------
skookumchuck
Here in Seattle we have the $12 million per mile bike lanes, and the mayor's
latest proposal, beds for the homeless at $12,600 per bed. The city government
spending is so cost-ineffective it's clear they'll never solve any problems.

~~~
briandear
And yet they also whine for a head-tax because they apparently don’t have
enough money. That’s why I oppose head-taxes because they don’t even spend the
money they have responsibly; I certainly don’t want them to have more. It’s
like feeding an addict.

------
rsync
One thing I haven't heard discussed, and would like to, is the notion that
there might be (effectively) _an unlimited number of people willing to be
homeless in California_.

Which is to say, you might be able to "solve" homeless problems in Denver or
Salt Lake or St. Paul - and there have been some very interesting and
encouraging policy moves there, especially in Salt Lake City. This might be
because there are _only so many people willing to be homeless in St. Paul_. Or
Green Bay or Denver - because of the cold and snow.

What does it mean if the stream of homeless into SF/LA/SD is, effectively,
unlimited ? How would that change our proposed solutions ?

~~~
protonimitate
I think it's incredibly insensitive to assume that just because the weather is
nice that people are fine being homeless.

Homelessness is by and large a product of mental health issues, and a lack of
a good mental health system.

>only so many people willing to be homeless... right, because so much of the
homeless population just needs to try harder. If this is how people really see
the issue it's no wonder that its still an issue.

~~~
conanbatt
I think it is an important concept to understand that the state of california
cant reasonably fix this.

If san francisco opened a state mental hospital for its homeless population,
then all california counties would send people to them. And if california did,
then all states would.

Mental health does need some sort of federal solution.

~~~
xienze
> If san francisco opened a state mental hospital for its homeless population,
> then all california counties would send people to them

Well, why not take that first step? I see the "we need more mental hospitals"
solution trotted out over and over again but it seems that these cities spend
a fortune doing everything for the homeless _but_ tackle mental health.

Is your concern really that creating mental hospitals would attract too many
homeless, moreso than the current policy of providing free drug paraphernalia,
safe places to do drugs, lax drug law enforcement, lax attitudes towards
panhandling, shelter, good weather, etc.?

~~~
conanbatt
That the cost of a single mental patient can rack up tens of thousands of
dollars a month. Multiply by 10k homeless, you get a fiscal hole, and then you
might end up with more nominal homeless on the streets because they are sent
to the facilty that cant take them.

------
littlesheephtpt
Why can't tech companies out-muscle NIMBY's and get 30-50 story residential
buildings approved? After spending time in different parts of China, it seems
asinine that most buildings here don't exceed ~4 stories.

~~~
moby
The question you're really wanting to ask is "why don't tech companies want to
be good corporate citizens?"

It's because of profit. Amazon opposing the per-employee tax that would
provide critical city services should help explain exactly where their
priorities lie.

~~~
refurb
Did you read the response of Amazon and other companies? It was less "we want
higher profits" and "you have enough money, you're just spending it in the
wrong places".

~~~
hcknwscommenter
Ahhh yes. And Amazon has no incentive to mis-characterize the reason they want
to lower their tax burden. I dislike the waste of tax money on defense
boondoggles. I still pay my taxes.

~~~
refurb
And so does Amazon. This was a debate over a _new_ head tax for companies.

------
crsv
Jason Calacanis makes comments about this from time to time on his podcast.
There's some pretty nontrivial problems with the whole NIMBY stuff, and it
seems like it will likely have to involve some seriously legislation that I
think might be more at the governor / state senate level. The homelessness
problem is something that no one has solved really well and is perhaps even
more complicated than the housing crisis itself (though they're part of the
same challenge in many ways).

This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or
break for SF as a whole, and given it the size and complexity of the problem,
will likely involve a very disruptive and painful change to address.

If I'm taking a bet here, I think it's more likely that they don't handle the
problem effectively and the workforce and economy distribute out of the
system, followed by a sudden and severe real-estate market correction, and
then the growth will settle and flatten for a while

~~~
rhizome
_This is one of those big daunting problems that feels increasingly make or
break for SF as a whole_

My sense is that it's "make or break" only for people who have been here for
three years and are trying to decide whether to remain for two more.

~~~
dcosson
That's kind of the whole point. Is the city full and now only open to the
wealthy and people who got lucky enough to buy houses > 5 years ago (or get
locked into rent control > 5 years ago), or should it be allowed to grow to
welcome new people from around the country and world who want to move here in
search of better opportunities? Because people who have lived here 3 years or
less by extension includes everyone who doesn't live here yet (as well as
basically everyone under 25 unless they grew up here).

I would also push back on the "deciding whether to stay for 2 more years" part
- sure, maybe young people tend to plan 2 years ahead at a time, but they're
really deciding if it's a place they want to settle down in permanently. If
they stay 2 more years they may well end up staying 20 more.

So I don't think it's at all a stretch to say this is a make or break issue
for the city.

~~~
rhizome
I'm on my third or fourth iteration of watching the waves of carpetbaggers
make their way through the city, which is a 150+ year tradition, mind. Not
only do the loudest complainers not know enough about homelessness in SF to
demand a simple solution that doesn't exist, they're going to be the first
people to find a reason to leave. From all outward appearances, they just want
to complain.

Nothing is "make or break" for a city like SF.

------
abalone
This article is a bit unfair to Kim and Leno. It says they are "cooler" on
housing than Breed, but that's not really accurate. They all want more
housing. The policy difference is over how hard to negotiate with developers
for working class housing.

The only quote from Kim is this: "If I’m going to give you ten additional
storeys, I’m going to want you to increase your middle-income housing
programme."

You can debate whether a purely free market approach will address this
effectively, but it's inaccurate to characterize fighting hardest for low- and
middle-income housing _now_ as a "cooler approach". Cities need housing for
service industry workers -- especially as more professionals move in.

~~~
raldi
The problem is, Kim doesn't seek to maximize below-market-rate _units
produced_ \-- she instead seeks to maximize the _percent_ of all units
produced that are below-market-rate.

In other words, given a choice between building 1,000 market-rate units and
200 BMR, or building 100 market-rate units and 100 BMR, she'll pick the
latter.

~~~
abalone
Do you have a source for that claim? She claims to have "negotiated and won
more affordable and middle-income housing than any city legislator."[1]

[1] [http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-
afford...](http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-affordable-
housing-crisis)

~~~
raldi
See, for example, <[https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-
estate/20...](https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-
estate/2016/01/s-f-affordable-housing-jane-kim-developers.html>), which refers
to "Supervisor Jane Kim's proposed ballot measure that would more than double
the amount of affordable housing that every market-rate project over 25 units
has to provide" and how "it would destroy the businesses of both market-rate
and affordable developers", and yet, "Kim is standing by her proposal".

As predicted by the city economist, after this passed we saw a huge drop in
the production of both BMR _and_ market-rate units: [https://medium.com/yes-
in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-ra...](https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-
yes/the-25-inclusionary-rate-is-killing-affordable-housing-db143c4abd31)

~~~
abalone
Your example is from 2016. She ended up compromising at 18%.[1] It doesn't
support your characterization. In her district she's facilitated the most new
housing construction by a long shot.

Your second citation is anonymously written and of questionable quality --
check the comments.

[1] [https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-
on...](https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-on-
affordable-housing-mandates)

~~~
nbantique
Can you help me understand why she changed her position on SB827 and held
rallies opposing 827? She says she is "not against housing & this is not the
right way to build". Her actions prove different. I have not seen any
solutions from her. She is not building enough to compensate for the growing
economy.

Like @raldi notes any apartments -- of any height ! -- are illegal to build in
78.6% of SF:
[http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/](http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/) . what
are her solutions to fix this then?

~~~
abalone
She's approved more housing in her district than anywhere else in the city
combined, so that's a little unfair. And she has answered exactly your
question, if you care to take a look:

[http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-
housi...](http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housing-
right-way/)

------
dmode
TBF, SF has build a fair number of housing compared to the Bay Area. It is
cities like San Mateo, Palo Alto, and Mountain View that are primarily to
blame for the housing crisis.

------
theNJR
I'm re-reading Gladwells What the Dog saw, and just came to Million Dollar
Murray: [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-
dollar...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/13/million-dollar-
murray)

The conclusions to this certainly made sense to me. Were they debunked or
forgotten?

------
dekhn
Only political will will fix its problems. And I don't think the proposed
leaders have that.

------
carapace
Two points I want to mention: first, this article is pretty informative (it's
been on HN before I'm pretty sure) about rents, construction, etc. in SF:
[https://experimental-
geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employme...](https://experimental-
geography.blogspot.com/2016/05/employment-construction-and-cost-of-san.html)

> Building enough housing to roll back prices to the "good old days" is
> probably not realistic, because the necessary construction rates were never
> achieved even when planning and zoning were considerably less restrictive
> than they are now. Building enough to compensate for the growing economy is
> a somewhat more realistic goal and would keep things from getting worse.

> In the long run, San Francisco's CPI-adjusted average income is growing by
> 1.72% per year, and the number of employed people is growing by 0.326% per
> year, which together (if you believe the first model) will raise CPI-
> adjusted housing costs by 3.8% per year. Therefore, if price stability is
> the goal, the city and its citizens should try to increase the housing
> supply by an average of 1.5% per year (which is about 3.75 times the general
> rate since 1975, and with the current inventory would mean 5700 units per
> year). If visual stability is the goal instead, prices will probably
> continue to rise uncontrollably.

\- - - - -

Second, SF city politics, always a bit freaky in the best of times, has gotten
_really_ weird since Mayor Lee passed away.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/san-francisco-mayor-
br...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/24/us/san-francisco-mayor-breed-
farrell.html)

\- - - - -

Put these two items together and the short answer to the question in the title
is, "No."

As mentioned in the article, we already spend one quarter of a _billion_
dollars on homelessness in SF. That's not a typo: 0.25 * 10 to the _ninth_
power.

> San Francisco’s programmes, which cost $250m per year, are praised by many
> campaigners against homelessness. Still, the city could spend its money more
> efficiently.

There's plenty of money, even after:

> About two-thirds of its homelessness budget goes on rent subsidies and
> “permanent supportive housing”.

So ~$170m for housing (never mind that folks aren't homeless if they live in a
house) still leaves ~$80m to deal with a few thousand people.

> Early intervention is often much cheaper.

Yes. Something like 60% of EMS response downtown is related to issues with a
small handful of people. The ambulance drivers know them by name.

\- - - - -

Last but not least, a random thought in re:

> Jeff Kositsky, the city’s director of homelessness services, cites the
> example of a driver for Lyft, a ride-hailing service, who nearly fell into
> homelessness after his car was damaged. The city kept him off the streets by
> simply paying off the cost of his car.

What? As an S.F. resident this doesn't seem right. I appreciate that this guy
isn't homeless, that's great, I'm not disturbed by that. The thing that I find
unsettling is why didn't his car insurance pay for it? Or Lyft for that
matter?

But then I have to remind myself that this is the city that passed a law to
just give money to certain businesses if they were considered "Legacy" enough.
I'm left-leaning but that blew me away:

[https://www.sfheritage.org/legacy/legacy-business-
registry-p...](https://www.sfheritage.org/legacy/legacy-business-registry-
preservation-fund/)

> The registry is open to businesses and nonprofits that are 30 years or
> older, have been nominated by a member of the Board of Supervisors or Mayor,
> and in a hearing before the Small Business Commission, prove that they have
> made a significant impact on the history or culture of their neighborhood.
> Only 300 business can be nominated annually and all applicants must agree to
> maintain the historic name and craft of their businesses.

[https://sfosb.org/legacy-business](https://sfosb.org/legacy-business)

> Through the Legacy Business Historic Preservation Fund, Legacy Businesses on
> the registry may receive Business Assistance Grants of $500 per full-time
> employee per year, while landlords who extend the leases of such businesses
> for at least 10 years may receive Rent Stabilization Grants of $4.50 per
> square foot of space leased per year. The business grants will be capped at
> $50,000 annually; the landlord grants will be capped at $22,500 a year. For
> fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19, a Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment of
> 3.1% will be added to the grants. Additional CPI adjustments will be made
> every two years.

Yes, Virgina, we collect taxpayer money and then give some of it to businesses
we like just because we like them.

------
wfbarks
"No"

------
rhizome
tl;dr: Betteridge's Law of Headlines

One of the tragic tropes of San Francisco is that people often and loudly
think homelessness just needs to be "fixed," and that it just takes getting
the right person into office to do so. But there ain't no silver bullet and
these issues are complicated.

It seems like SF has been moving in good directions as far as dialing down the
"arrest the homeless" strategy propounded by carpetbaggers offended that the
sidewalks don't remind them of Topeka, the evolution of Navigation Centers,
and other homeless-directed policies.

Frankly, zoning and development issues seem easy compared to homelessness.
It's popular to dehumanize those without money, so the ideas only trickle in.
Flint, MI still has poisoned tap water, after all.

------
BooneJS
No.

------
d_burfoot
> A further constraint... is its wide-ranging rent-control scheme... All three
> leading candidates... would like to see it expanded.

I read this in about the same light as if I read that all three candidates
believe in homeopathy and intelligent design.

~~~
hcknwscommenter
I am rent controlled. It is the only reason I still live in SF. I would love
for more housing to be built that I could afford to buy. In the meantime, I
would also love to be able to move into a rent controlled single family home,
even if that raised rent prices %5 (estimate of effect of rent control on rent
prices from other poster). It's the stability I crave. I know too many people
who rented a single family home and then their rent tripled over night.

