Support NeoGAF

[Aztechnology]

if its anything like the way NYC does things its going to be years before a family ever steps foot in an affordable home.

Generations potentially. These locations are quickly becoming for the top Americans and extremely wealthy expats only. San Fransisco? Na Elysium.

 

[sonicmj1]

The article is about six and a half years old now, but SF Weekly's story "The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S." covers pretty thoroughly all the ways in which the city government completely and utterly fails to maintain any sort of accountability for whether any of the money it spends is being used in a productive way.

Homelessness is the most splashy and visible example of this problem, and it doesn't sound like it's gotten any better over the years since this article was written.

 

[Rootbeer]

241 million per year. I think they can do a lot better for that money.

I've been inside one of the largest homeless shelters in my state. Houses over 500. On-site meals, medical, job assistance, even haircuts. It seemed like a very tightly ran ship to accomidate all that was required, and still it can only house a tiny portion of the nearby homeless. If you research other shelters in SF, some of them are very small, they house sometimes as few as 10 people each. The wait lists are long. Very long. It's just not enough, not even close.

If they could build a facility or series of them with lots of private spaces for those in need with lots of services on-site or nearby, it would go a long way towards addressing the most pressing problem which is that these people don't have a place to live. I don't see why 241 million per year couldn't accomplish a task like that. They should increase the amount, even. This is a very wealthy area. Give this problem the funds it deserves.

 

[Sinfamy]

Living in Portland I can attest to this city having a massive homelessness problem.
Many people think ignoring it is the humane thing to do.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

There's empty corporate parks and land up & down the peninsula that can be repurposed into housing, but the rampant NIMBYism in the Bay Area is preventing any kind of change.

For some reason there's this thought that all high density buildings have to be this boring matchstick like buildings, but you can build high density housing that fits in with the aesthetic of the area it's going to.

 

[Fuchsdh]

There's empty corporate parks and land up & down the peninsula that can be repurposed into housing, but the rampant NIMBYism in the Bay Area is preventing any kind of change.

For some reason there's this thought that all high density buildings have to be this boring matchstick like buildings, but you can build high density housing that fits in with the aesthetic of the area it's going to.

You can, but I've yet to see real examples of this that aren't mandated by historical register restrictions and the like.

 

[entremet]

You can, but I've yet to see real examples of this that aren't mandated by historical register restrictions and the like.

This a great example of classic left/progressive principles vying against each other. Stringent regulation versus helping the poor. It's a similar story in many Blue Cities.

 

[GurgleBot20]

Excuse my ignorance on how property value fluctuates, but wouldn't you think that the increase in homelessness and poverty eventually decrease the amount of much property would cost?

 

[backflip10019]

Excuse my ignorance on how property value fluctuates, but wouldn't you think that the increase in homelessness and poverty eventually decrease the amount of much property would cost?

Typically I think you would be right, but corporate growth within SF must be outpacing the impact that more homeless would have on property value. It's far too desirable an area for most people to care about a few more homeless.

 

[otapnam]

Typically I think you would be right, but corporate growth within SF must be outpacing the impact that more homeless would have on property value. It's far too desirable an area for most people to care about a few more homeless.

Just brush the majority under a rug. If you don't see them ALL of the time it isn't THAT BAD. Right?

I've worked in SF for 9 years now. some of the areas are pretty awful these days. You also see the same people wandering the same area for years

 

[GurgleBot20]

Typically I think you would be right, but corporate growth within SF must be outpacing the impact that more homeless would have on property value. It's far too desirable an area for most people to care about a few more homeless.

How long can corporate growth occur with these conditions though? I can only speak for myself, but as someone who isn't ruling out the possibility of moving to a different big city for job purposes, San Francisco sounds like a place I would want to avoid.

 

[entremet]

Typically I think you would be right, but corporate growth within SF must be outpacing the impact that more homeless would have on property value. It's far too desirable an area for most people to care about a few more homeless.

Not to mention all the yuppie style apps and services that shield you from interaction with the public. Many based in SF lol.

 

[ezrarh]

Increasing housing supply doesn't usually mean you decrease property values but is a really common misconception. If you're increasing housing supply by upzoning the land, that dramatically increases land value in the area since you can build more housing units per acre. Builders will only build if projected demand and prices support construction costs. San Francisco and the rest of California in general have fallen behind on construction of new housing units for a long time now and it's not due to lack of money. SF the city itself is a clusterfuck and I would hate to be a developer out there.

 

[TarpitCarnivore]

How long can corporate growth occur with these conditions though? I can only speak for myself, but as someone who isn't ruling out the possibility of moving to a different big city for job purposes, San Francisco sounds like a place I would want to avoid.

The corporate growth in the Bay Area is not like it was during the dot com bubble and 08. There's always going to be those companies that flame out after 12-18 months, but a lot more stable companies have moved there. There's been tax abatements for the SOMA district to bring in big companies (Twitter started this) and Salesforce has/had a massive new building going up.

San Francisco is a very weird city and you can either absolutely love it or despise it. It's definitely a place that is best served by visiting it and living in a neighborhood over living in a hotel. It has stunning views, access to lots of outdoor areas, great biking routes, huge food + coffee scene, lots of jobs (duh) but it's also filled with a massive homeless problem, crime can be bad, often terrible public transportation and the disparity in wealth smacks you in the face at every corner.

I stayed in the Lower Haight / Duboce section a few years ago and despite being an area filled with younger kids and families I was still walking past homeless people and human shit (literally) every morning. Out in the Sunset & Richmond districts it's not as bad, and tbh it's quite awesome out there relative to downtown, but those areas can leave you 45 minutes from downtown due to the poor transit options.

Increasing housing supply doesn't usually mean you decrease property values but is a really common misconception. If you're increasing housing supply by upzoning the land, that dramatically increases land value in the area since you can build more housing units per acre. Builders will only build if projected demand and prices support construction costs. San Francisco and the rest of California in general have fallen behind on construction of new housing units for a long time now and it's not due to lack of money. SF the city itself is a clusterfuck and I would hate to be a developer out there.

The bigger issue in increased housing is public services, mainly schools.

 

[Sulik2]

Many homeless people have mental health issues. You can't get them proper help without a health care system in the USA thats not garbage. So many problems this country faces could be helped by a single payer health system.

 

[SapientWolf]

Many homeless people have mental health issues. You can't get them proper help without a health care system in the USA thats not garbage. So many problems this country faces could be helped by a single payer health system.

There are millionaires that still end up on the streets due to the abysmal state of mental health care in the US.

 

[Nephtes]

Sometimes I wonder if SF's spending is what pushes some people around there to lean right politically. Like they see with their own eyes that all these social programs seemingly don't work.

What???
Social programs that don't work?

I think you have a typo there because LOL, it would be news to me, NEWS to hear about a social program not working.

Quite frankly this social program not working problem sounds like something we can solve with more social programs and more taxes on non-homeless people.

 

[FStop7]

The fact the Bay Area probably contains the single greatest consolidation of brainpower in the history of the world is what makes it twice as embarrassing.