It’s a city, right. You know that?
Black pop is down from 17%. I know there’s a reason you want to compare it specifically to whites, go ahead and tell us?
Eh. Things change. In 1940, the black population was 0.8%. A whole bunch of blacks moved there during and/or after WWII. Then they moved away. Then a whole bunch of Asians and Latinos moved in. Things change.
Would easing restrictions on things like building height and development, at least to some degree, really “kill that engine”? In my understanding, more density, when done well (as opposed to slums) leads to more innovation.
Rent control is a cause of the problem it is trying to solve. If people are forced to rent units at prices that are less than it cost to build the units, then people will simply not build the units. It is estimated than between 10,000 and 25,000 of the city’s rental units are not put on the market because owners do not want to have to deal with rent control.
As for helping the poor, 25% of the rent controlled apartments are rented to people making over 100K and there are more rich people in them than poor.
Tokyo Japan is the friendliest big city in the world to new construction and development. It has added about 200,000 people in the last 5-7 years. Despite this new growth, rents have not gone up at all and are currently half of San Fransisco’s per square foot.
What would be better for the working people in San Francisco, that those people who were lucky enough to cop a rent controlled apartment hang on to it, or for the rent of every residence to be cut in half?
Yep, them blacks, you know, they just upped and moved away 'gin. No 'counting fer it.
Yeah, I find that kinda interesting (Salesforce Tower). SF seems to welcome new office towers which bring thousands of transient workers in from somewhere else each weekday, but when it comes to high-rise residences, are they as accommodating? I know the area around the ballpark was shitty until it was redeveloped with condo blocks. Maybe its easier to redevelop in a commercial zone as opposed to residential.
Well, you’re the one who thinks it’s a problem. What’s the correct percentage of blacks for SF? You tell us what the number should be and why. I’m just pointing out that it’s changed and changed a lot over the decades and now sits right at about the state average. If this is a problem, the burden is on you to demonstrate why.
SF is one of the most expensive cities to live in the US, and blacks tend to be lower income than whites and Asians. Do the math. But then, as I noted, the number of whites is way down, too. Does that bother you at all?
I am not sure the comparison with Tokyo is helpful. Tokyo is the biggest metropolitan area in the world with a population of 37Million. A couple of hundred thousand over 5 years is not much of a change for a mega city.
The way rent control typically works is that it restricts the ability to tear down a building and build a new one with more units.
Also rent control limits the number of units on the market. If you got rid of rent control, you would see a reduction of rent prices but there are a lot of people in San Francisco paying way below market prices who would no longer be able to live in san Francisco. Do you consider it more important that the residents of the Mission continue to pay 1986 levels of rent because that is the only way they can continue to live there? Or would it be a good thing to develop the area with more housing even if it means that many of the people that live in the mission end up moving out?
These are the two most obvious ways that rent control increases the rent prices in an area.
Highest best use. You want cheaper rent? Well there are only 2 ways to reduce the equilibrium price of rent. Increase supply or decrease demand. The demand isn’t going anywhere and you don’t want it to. Increasing supply means you need more development and San Francisco is notoriously difficult to develop because the NIMBY is strong there.
With no street parking, you can ramp up busses almost immediately. It would reduce congestion and while parking spaces would go for a premium, people in San Francisco would eventually learn to live without cars the same as people in NYC.
I don’t know how you make this omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Its a 2% increase which is not much, but the rental prices in Tokyo only went up 5% total from 20011-2015. Meanwhile San Francisco’s population grew by 7% during that time and average rent went up 45%. If San Francisco rent had only grown by what Tokyo’s did then the average renter would save $1,000 a month. If it had gone up by the same multiple of the population increase the average renter would save $700 a month.