Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin
61,000 homes are empty in San Francisco (YouTube) (youtube.com)
9 points by tartoran on Oct 28, 2022 | hide | past | favorite | 6 comments


From my pov this is mostly a bullsh*t stat peddled by politicians, like Dean Preston, to oppose building. Units count as vacant, for instance, if they are for rent and no one has moved in yet.

https://socketsite.com/archives/2022/02/there-are-not-40000-...

I'm not really sure if its fair to say a unit being renovated or on the market for one month are vacant in a way meaningful to the discourse on housing people.


> bullsh*t stat ... Units count as vacant, for instance, if they are for rent and no one has moved in yet.

That category of units seems correctly labeled as "vacant"


Its a meaningless stat in the context of housing that a property can be counted as vacant because the owner needs two weeks to clean it out and update it for a new owner. Why not count a home as vacant when you leave for work? It's technically true in the same way but also has close to zero meaning in terms of housing people.

Preston - who is the one elevating this stat - has blocked a lot of housing in SF over character and other concerns. I don't think its reading too much into it that he pushes this stat so he can continue to block new housing projects while pretending to be progressive

https://nimby.report/preston


I think the term "for rent" might mean different things to different people. I read that as "apartments listed as being available to rent to the public (e.g. on apartments.com) with no signed contract for anyone to move in". Which I would think would be one of the primary reasons for vacancy.

Meanwhile, your source seems to say some houses shouldn't be counted vacant because they are 2nd, 3rd or 4th houses, or are listed on AirBnB as short term rentals, all of which I would classify as vacant. I know 1/6 vacant homes are a second home in SF (according to the YouTube video).

But I would agree with you that apartments that will be empty for < 1 month as turnover happen makes no sense to classify as vacant, assuming that the new renter is identified.


"Empty" homes are actually useful for cities. And 61k is not a lot for SF. What's the stock?

Think how would you move to a city where all the stock is occupied. How someone who needs a larger unit would do (think on new parents), or if you want to move because your landlord is a piece of shit. You'd be screwed.

If you're in a city where is frequent to show units to múltiple people at the same time, you're in trouble and there are not enough units meeting demand.

This kind of talking points about vacant housing are nonsense. Vacant homes are good for everyone but for investors/landlords.

Are you worried about affordability, easy of access, disposable income and savings (consumption and investments) for the rest of the economy?

Then oppose this people as much as you can. Be vocal. Take it seriously.

Housing is not just another economic problem.


Sounds a bit low for a city the size of San Francisco, assuming normal levels of turnover and normal times for exchange.

Is the video claiming that SF is too efficient?




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: