I have been to the Google campus. A friend of mine works there and invited my lady and I on a tour: it was…impressive. The amenities provided for their employees, the food alone: Indian? Japanese? Prime Rib? Oh hell yeah: as guests we were free to eat…and we did. Twice. The demographic was young, diverse and seemingly positive and energized (of course I only saw everyone on their lunch break). I also know from my friends’ situation, that he works. Many hours. More than I would care to sit in front of a screen; regardless of the quality of the dhal soup and the It’s-It’s…
I have lived in SF all my life. I have seen the changes over the years: after the ‘89 quake, property values dropped, businesses closed…the 90’ were fairly prosperous and led to Web 1.0, that brought new money into the City and scared tenants and made landlords happy.
That time was a mere economic blip compared with the last 2 years: the construction on upper Market and around town…I can think of 20 new buildings that I drive by on my way from my (rent controlled) apartment in Russian Hill to my job as a fire engine driver in Noe Valley.
(So basically I hit the jackpot…twice.) I am very lucky…and very thankful.
I am conflicted when confronted with the effects of gentrification: I have friends that are really struggling to find any kind of living space. I read the papers, I see the effects of Ellis Act evictions: it’s scary…for many people. But permissive local policies regarding quality of life issues and a sizable street population have caused some areas (I’m thinking specifically of Mid-Market) to become crime ridden, undesirable places to live and work.
I do not relish the thought of working class people in SF being squeezed; nor to I want to turn the homeless into Soylent Green: but local government and social service policies have failed the most needy…that problem seems almost intractable. Nonetheless, If market forces allow the creation of residences for the well-off, hopefully the broadened revenues can be used to create more affordable housing…
But Google’s foolishly over-large buses are not the problem. The issue is an influx of new money and more new people who have it. The buses are merely a symptom of change…and that particular malady is, for better or worse, inescapable.
I wasn’t making digs at Californians, I lived there for a long time, Bay Area, LA and San Diego. I was stating an attitude that exists in the Portland / Seattle areas.
You say that you aren’t protesting the right of Google employees to live where they want, but only the fact that they don’t contribute anything meaningful to San Francisco; what do you consider a meaningful contribution. I know a few people who work at Google but only one who works there and lives in SF. They don’t rent, they own the house, but presumably by buying they displaced someone else who contributed in a more meaningful way even though they pay their property tax, shop locally, have their kids in the local school, go to movies etc. locally. What else would be required for hem to be a meaningful contributor?
And what about the younger employees who rent, what is required for their contributions to the city to be meaningful? They choose to live their for quality of life reasons which implies that they are spending money to enjoy that quality of life. This is the way most people contribute to a city, through economic activity. Color me stupid I guess because I am not understanding your point. On the other hand I could sympathize if you could point to actual deleterious such as increased crime, higher rates of drug use something like that.
The situation currently blows. But scads of these folks will be gone in a year or two after the pop. What I enjoy is this ABAG fantasy that you could cram two million more people into the Bay Area. Where would they live? And what would they wash their Audis with?
Any time I read about this issue, I don’t really get why this is what people are protesting. Of all the problems that Google et al bring, this has to be about the least damaging to the area.
Wish I could “like” this twice. This is an immemorial tension, but one of the things that makes SF a great city is that it has diverse neighborhoods with various kinds of houses and buildings, corner stores, local restaurants, bars, etc. It is not a city of “transient” people - it’s an old city, with a mix of “old” families (not all of them rich) and newer residents. The Google buses are both a symbol of gentrification and an actual traffic problem. Now that they have security guards, the scenario is even more post-apocalyptic and expressive of the wealth gap in the country and area. Good for the protesters for bringing attention to this. The fee the city will charge Google is about $100,000 by the way…http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2014/01/did-san-franciscos-google-bus-deal-just-set-price-curb-space/8071/
Increased crime, etc are certainly deleterious. But too much concentration of wealth can also be, if it pushes out a healthy diversity and replaces it with high-priced apartments, boutiques, restaurants, clubs, etc. Why do people come to San Francisco? It’s certainly not to go to the Gap, Ruth Chris’ Steakhouse, etc.
So you reiterate my point then, “damn them for making money and wanting to live here.” You don’t like the idea of change, I get that, but dress it up in talk about diversity or preservation or whatever it’s still NIMBYism or a They’re Not Like Us reaction.
No, renting doesn’t increase the cost of living in an area. Demand does. Since demand for real estate – whether rental or purchased – seems to exceed supply in SF right now, prices go up. The current owner sets the price and, if the buyer/renter is willing to pay it, a new price point is established. Lather, rinse, repeat. Nothing at all to do with qualities a rental property has that a for-sale listing does not, with the possible exception that I’d expect a rental property landlord to have more units from which to collect price point data.
Gee, glad you know me so well. It can’t be Nimby because I don’t live in the city. And I actually do care about diversity, which seems to be an issue beneath your concerns. I wonder where you live …
Vancouver is the most over priced Real Estate in Canada. For the city’s standard lot 33x122’ you’re looking around a million dollars Canadian for that in an average area. It’s likely to be a run down dinky shack built in the late 70s to early 90s.
The cause of it is mostly fiscal manipulation, rates are low, giving people in the country high incentives to buy. It will correct eventually, not going to be pretty. Basically a government policy mismanagement done after the subprime crisis that happened in the States. Also doesn’t help that the local governments (counting the nearby munips.) take in make their majority of their taxes through Real Estate.
As for San Francisco’s gentrification, I’m not sure. I know the results–protests on what people generally perceives as cause, however what is the real cause? What are the local government policies and economic data of the past 50 years? Are Real Estate prices and rent high due to unsupported economic reasons, like high price speculations, or real economic reasons? Did the subprime crisis had an opposite effect on San Francisco–that is the resulting policy afterwards compared to other cities in the States like Phoenix?
I think it’s significantly (though not entirely) a symbolic location. Considering the fact that Google is not in San Francisco, but the protests are about the effects they have had on San Francisco, it makes sense to me.
Congrats on comparing yourself to victims of the Kmher Rouge, Holocaust, and slavery. You’ve basically just reminded us what kind of people Libertarians are… and why you folks should be opposed at every turn…
Hell, in many areas, fairly short-duration rentals reduce property values as often rentals end up being the taken up by those that don’t make terribly good decisions with their money and accordingly don’t make terribly good decisions in general. On top of that, in many places renters don’t take vested interests in their neighborhoods either, and don’t clean up after vandalism or do other beautification projects.
The only exception to this seems to be in limited neighborhoods in particularly high-density cities that are particularly desirable places to live, which tend to price-out those that won’t take care of the place.
