A 2:15 Alarm, 2 Trains and a Bus Get Her to Work by 7 A.M
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
The San Francisco Bay Area CSA has about the same population as Switzerland, with 2/3 of the area of Switzerland.
Both have similar GDPs.
If someone wanted to live in Germany, and commute to work in Zurich, with Swiss salaries and German cost-of-living, their commute would be about 1h15min.
The housing and infrastructure problems in the SFBA are purely political, and self-inflicted.
But a non-political solution to affordable housing could be coming soon in the form of rapid transit via Hyperloop. Hyperloop could put deflationary pressure on housing prices.
If Hyperloop actually materializes, and their route transit times are anywhere near what they say they will be, then real estate prices should decline in the bay area, or at the worst level out.
I doubt people will continue to pay crazy prices in SF when you can commute from almost anywhere on the west coast to SF within an hour on Hyperloop.
Furthermore, a Hyperloop might get you from city to city, but then local transit is needed for those last couple miles.
The stations have to go somewhere, the tunnels have to go somewhere, etc.
That's true, but the implication that these decisions are inarguably stupid ("self-inflicted") is unfair. It's a conscious and IMHO defensible choice by the people who already live here: we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.
Pretty sure you're not speaking for me and most of my SFBA friends...
If you could choose to vote where you work instead of where you live, this problem would go away very quickly.
What's happening is that the wealthy are externalizing all the suffering caused by their voracious rent-seeking onto those beneath them, including middle class developers who think their interests align with them (they don't).
But the Stanford professor writing about the plight of the poor workers commuting for 2 hours lives in a multi-million dollar home in Atherton and votes for anti-poor-people zoning laws.
The young, billionaire, startup CEO who wants to cause a positive impact in the world lives in Los Altos Hills, where zoning laws forbid lot sizes smaller than 1 acre, and bans multi-family housing or more than one dwelling per lot.
And the progressive tech worker who advocates for low-income-housing and makes $250k per year lives in a rent-controlled apartment in the Mission paying half of the market rates.
The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons.
The adjective "self-inflicted" has an undeniable negative connotation. Why didn't you say, "deliberately chosen" instead?
> The Bay Area housing situation is a tragedy of the commons.
No, it's not. It is neither a tragedy, nor does it have anything to do with commons. Yes, it is a case of the rich making life harder for the poor, but that's only a tragedy for the poor. It's not a tragedy for the rich. It's not a tragedy for tourists who can enjoy the distinctive nature of the SFBay area while it still has redwood trees instead of being paved over with high-rise apartments. It's not a tragedy for the wildlife that lives in the privately owned open space on the Peninsula. And none of this has anything to do with "the commons." All that open space is privately owned, and all of the governments who won't change the zoning laws (including the state government, BTW) are democratically elected.
If you turn the San Francisco Bay into another Manhattan or Hong Kong that would not make it any less of a tragedy. It would just be a different kind of tragedy.
For those who don't appear to know what "Tragedy of the commons" is, it's an economic concept[1] that doesn't necessarily involve a "tragedy" and "the commons" can include private property.
A recent example of "tragedy of the commons" was during the recent California extended drought, Wall Street firms were buying up struggling pistachio farms in California, drilling wells deeper than nearby farmers did, and were undercutting those farmers by siphoning the aquifer from below, encouraging those competing farmers to dig deeper wells and use water faster. "The commons" would be the aquifer / water rights that the farmers commonly depend on. The tragedy was that in the depths of the drought, other pistachio farmers were unable to afford to dig deeper, their harvests were scant, and the price of pistachios worldwide had tripled -- all of which further incentivized well funded outsiders to do the same and buy out farmers.
You can argue that SF MTA management and SF building / zoning policy isn't in the best interest of SF citizens, but pedantically arguing the semantics of "tragedy of the commons" won't win you any intellectual arguments.
There's no need to become Manhattan or Hong Kong. Just invest in infrastructure.
Most cities are denser than Switzerland. My undergrad town of 25K is over 20 times denser than Switzerland.
Switzerland has excellent public transit. Therefore, if there is a density threshold to offering good public transit, an area would need to be at least less dense than Switzerland in order to argue that it isn't possible.
The SF Bay Area is denser than Switzerland. Therefore, the reasons for not having good transit are not to do with density, but with something else (politics, zoning, public support, etc.). But density is not the issue.
You're not getting the basic point with transit infrastructure: it requires density.
Transit systems are only viable with enough people living and working at walking distance from the stations.
Increasing density decreases traffic, increases transit effectiveness, and reduces environmental impact. It's simple geometry.
That works very, very well for public transportation. The issue with transit and density is not about distances, is actually about the number of people living and working within walking distance of a transit stop.
If you increase density by 5X, that number increases by 5X.
So two cities with the same density, one spread out evenly and the other in high-density islands surrounded by low density seas, have very different viabilities for public transit.
I lived in Switzerland for 9 months last year. They have arguably the best transit infrastructure in the world, with a passenger rail system that is 100% electric.
According to Wikipedia, the density of Zurich is ~4600 people/km^2. The density of San Francisco is ~7170 people/km^2. So what excuse does SF have for being so very, very much worse?
Take a look at the referendums over the past few years: universal basic income? No. More vacation days? No. Forbid speculation on food products? No. Define marriage as man/woman? No. Build a new tunnel across the Alps? Hell yeah!
But it isn't just about density. You can have mid to low average density, but still have a viable transit system.
Public transit doesn't just depend on the overall average density, but on the density of the area surrounding the transit stops.
Switzerland has reasonably dense cities and towns, with very-low-density areas in between. The SFBA has evenly-distributed low density (except for a few areas).
Increasing the distance between dense cores doesn't have as much negative impact on transit viability as spreading people out has.
The SFBA could easily solve this by changing the zoning laws around Bart, Caltrain, VTA and Muni stations.
I totally agree with you here. This is the crux of my argument.
Your statement about Switzerland having reasonably dense cities and towns compared with the Bay Area I'm interested in learning more about - can you cite your source? Having lived in Switzerland for almost a year and in the Bay Area for almost 4, this doesn't ring true to me, but I don't have a heat map of population density to check against; if I get more time at some point I'll try to find more data.
Regardless, we do have some areas of sufficient population density that it would make sense to connect efficiently and we don't. That's the choice I'm talking about. At the very least, it should be easy to get between Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose without needing a car. Within San Francisco, you should be able to go from the east side to the west side without using a system that suffers from being delayed at least 50% of the time.
Also - regarding more vacation days? The government already mandates 4 weeks of vacation (5 if you're under 20) and you are supposed to take at least two of those weeks in a row.
I had some Swiss friends and we were on a train once that was delayed by 15-20 minutes. They were all complaining because this happens once in a blue moon. They mentioned that if the train is delayed by more than 3 minutes it has to be posted on signage and if it's delayed more than 6 minutes or would cause someone to miss a connection it results in fines to the operator. I haven't been able to find a written source to back this up but personally I almost never experienced delays on Swiss transit.
https://qz.com/166186/the-swiss-are-scandalized-by-trains-th...
Swiss media are abuzz with the news of the country’s faltering rail system. Last year, the state-run rail operator missed its target for punctuality; only 87.5% of trains arrived within three minutes of their scheduled arrival.
A national transit system runs like clockwork, every single gear must be turning in sync for the system to work.
San Francisco will always be a distinctive and attractive place, with or without density. And by building more housing and improving transit, it will become less distinctive in negative ways (homelessness for one). NYC has multiple tourist attractions that have almost 3 times as visitors as those in San Francisco.[1]
> tragedy for the wildlife
It is a tragedy for the wildlife worldwide for people who work in cities to have to spend countless hours commuting and expending carbon emissions.
True, rich land-owners may have to pay more tax and some may see slightly lower appreciation rates, but many other rich people and almost all poor and middle class will benefit. No doubt someone of it is "self-inflicted" at the state-level (Prop 13 for one, and "environmental" approvals used to drag down new development), but there are actionable ways to fix some of this -- passing sales tax, easing rigid zoning laws, and using new funds for transit measures like Measure M in Los Angeles, and Measure B in San Jose.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourist_attractions_in_the_Uni...
You yourself said:
>we would prefer to deal with the problems caused by insufficient housing than by the problems caused by overly dense population.
Is problems not a negative connotation?
Yes, it is negative, and it is self-inflicted. In your original comment, you are actually agreeing with the parent.
On the one hand you have more access for more people to one of the most important and dynamic urban areas in the United States. On the other you have the "distinctive nature of the SFBay area" and redwood trees.
I think it's pretty obvious that the first is more important than the latter, but it's fair of you to want to make that tradeoff explicit.
No, all parties take part in it. Rent control, mandating low-income units, preventing new developments, preventing gentrification, etc. all constrain supply. And it isn't just the rich doing it.
A more proper description would be a conflict between the insiders and the outsiders, with the insider being anyone who already rents or owns a place. Insiders don't want change, and want outsiders to be punished and taxed.
The commons in this case isn't the land, it's the government and laws.
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2013/10/10/mark-zuckerberg-buys-f...
In the densely populated parts of the Netherlands we've had an unhealthy housing market for decades, partly because of government subsidized mortages through tax breaks.
"Everyone" kind of agrees that is should be abolished, but the polical and popular will is laking, and people won't be able to pay their mortages anymore if it happened too sudden. Also it would cause homes to deflate 10-30% which would be a serious issue for current owners who want to move.
Everyone thinks the market would be better off without the mortgage subsidy, but no-one wants his house to lose value because of a resulting market slump or make higher mortgage payments every month.
- So for example, prop 13 would only apply if your above retirement age for example. (Avoiding old people)
- Or prop 13 only applies to somewhere where you live as a homeowner. (Not a lot of people have second homes)
- No secondary residences or rental properties would get prop 13 benefits.
- Prop 13 benefits cannot apply to corporations / LLCs. (Many people don't have their own house under a corp since they lose a big capital gains tax break if they do)
- Prop 13 benefits cannot be passed on to your children through a trust or whatever else.
That's why I believe housing policy needs to be decided at the Bay Area or CA state level. When these decisions are made at the local level, it's people like your friends who selfishly vote to inflict the high costs of housing on to others. Hopefully this NIMBY-ism can be averted by making sure that all stakeholders get a say in the housing policy of a incredibly interconnected region.
That's not true. It makes it hard to find good help. (That was intended to be humorously ironic, but there's a serious point behind it: everything in the SFBA is more expensive than it would be if housing were more plentiful.)
> you're benefiting through increasing home values
Not really. You only benefit from this if you sell, and if you sell two bad things happen if housing prices are up. First, you take a big hit on capital gains, and second, you lose your prop 13 benefits. So rising prices make it really hard to move within the SFBA even for people who already live here.
Yes, you can sell and move away, but people don't want to do that because everyplace else sucks by comparison. If that weren't true, there wouldn't be so many people wanting to move here driving up our prices!
I have no objections to paying taxes. Quite the contrary.
First you're complaining about "huge" capital gains, which is literally a tax on profit you made for doing nothing. A tax, might I add, that is much less than income tax. Second, you're complaining about Prop. 13, which just means you're upset about the prospect of paying the property taxes you actually owe, as opposed to the wildly deflated ones from when you purchased.
I don't think you understand just how out of touch you're coming across, and nothing in your statement suggests you have anything but objections to paying your fair share of taxes.
Specifically: the house I own is too big for me. I'd like to downsize. If housing prices were flat I could sell my house, buy a smaller house for less, reduce my property taxes, and only pay the transaction costs. But because my house and all the others around have appreciated, I can't do that. The smaller house I want to move in to costs more than the house I'm in when I bought it, so if I downsize my property taxes go up. Also, I have to pay transaction costs on a much bigger transaction plus pay the capital gains tax on a gain which I don't get to realize. The only way I win is if I move out of the area. But I don't want to do that. I like it here.
None of this would be a problem if prices were flat. It costs me more (a LOT more!) to downsize because the market is up. Hence an appreciating market is not necessarily good for you even if you own.
Edit: perhaps not ‘best’, rather ‘preferable if compatible with your financials’
I don't know how to rebut this, because it's such an absurd sentiment on its face.
Home equity is a benefit. You can borrow against it or otherwise use it as an asset on paper.
> if you sell two bad things happen if housing prices are up. First, you take a big hit on capital gains
Wait, what? You're arguing that it's a "bad thing" if you have to pay a percentage of additional profits? Most primary residences aren't subject to capital gains if you hold them for > 2 years, assuming the gain is less than $0.5million (married, co-owning).
If that happened to enough people, prices would stabilize closer to reality.
At the very least prop 13 should have been restricted to owner-occupied principal residences. But that ship sailed long before my time.
No, except for housing, most things are less expensive, because more housing would mean more population but not proportionally more infrastructure (at least, without higher maintenance costs per unit, because the cheap choices are already built) for imports to the region, which means supply increases less than demand for anything with external inputs, which means prices go up.
This effect is even worse for things that are limited and local in supply, like unique local features, where you get increased demand with no increased supply, not merely supply increase less than proportional to demand. So prices on those go way up.
This is completely untrue. I have a house in 94087 where I live about 7 months/year (the other 5 months are in Tel Aviv, where it's also very expensive!) I own the house, bought in in 1989. I don't benefit at all from increased house prices. It just makes everything more expensive.
And even under Prop 13, my property tax goes up 2% a year. That's more than inflation.
I don't benefit at all from the "increased value" in my house. If I could, I'd tear down the house and build a 2-family house on the property. But even if zoning laws allowed it, the house would be reassessed at current market value, and it wouldn't be worth it to pay $32,000/year in property taxes alone. (I've looked into this to the extent of hiring a real-estate lawyer to see if it's feasible).
If there were no prop 13, people would be forced out of their homes because specu-vesters would drive the prices up making just the taxes affordable.
The solution is to BUILD MORE HOUSES. Build apartment buildings. Close by so people can walk or take existing mass transit to work. And allow people with single family homes to tear them down and build 2-family homes without being reassessed.
It only matters if I decide to sell it AND move somewhere else. Which probably isn't going to happen.
So now people buy in and don't move.
You (quite literally) have a million-dollar offer on the table to move to, say, Austin, TX (or dozens of other great cities). The fact that you choose not to accept that offer does not negate the existence of the offer. The offer is always there. And this is a very real asset that you have (that, I hope it's clear, most people don't have), whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.
Value of primary residence isn't even considered part of your net worth. It exists, but it's not fungible like other assets.
Anything you own that has value, but is not your primary residence, is intrinsically different from your primary residence.
And that difference is reflected in standard financial metrics.
Prop 13 also induces people to not sell their property, or convert properties into more units like you, so there are less available units on the market, which increases prices even further.
For example go look at SF or LA vs Miami on Redfin and see the stark difference in how many units are for sale at one time.
Higher property taxes encourages people to sell their properties if it's not economically worth it anymore to hold the property and give it to people who would actually use it. And it also encourages them politically to build more housing so their property tax bill does not go up too much.
If the city doesn't make enough money, then it become bankrupt. Roads, schools, sewers and police can't function properly anymore. The money has to come from somewhere!
This statement smells really, really bad.
As the article stated, she had to leave the SFBA because she was evicted and the housing prices had gone up too much. She lived there, and didn't chose that. As with all gentrification, the population that lived there didn't chose for affluent (typically white) people to move in and raise their rents forcing them further and further away from what had been a home to them for generations.
[UPDATE] Let me clarify: I can see how you could object to various aspects of our political system. I myself am active in trying to tackle the problem of income inequality and getting Citizens United repealed. But the housing problems in the SFBA are just symptoms of this much larger overlying problem. You can object to those, and I'll be right beside you. What I'm talking about is focusing on the high cost of housing in the SFBA in isolation as if it's a standalone problem that has a simple and obvious solution that the Powers That Be are just too dim to see or too corrupt to implement. That is not the case.
Because of this, I don't think local governments should have control over zoning. The impacts are at least state wide so they should be regulated at the state or national level.
What you are saying, is after her building was bought out and she and her neighbors were then about to be homeless, they should have formed a political organization? Where, exactly? I mean, she went to one town, who knows where the other 5/10/50 people went.
That kind of argument comes from a very privileged position of a person who hasn't been gentrified out of their neighborhood.
This is a direct result of greed; not capitalism or democracy (I mean, we aren't even a democracy, but a representative republic).
No. By then it's obviously too late. You have to act before laws are passed that drive your constituency out of town. But there are a lot of places where this has happened and renters have a lot of rights. And, BTW, the city of San Francisco is one of them. I am not a landlord, but I am told that it is nearly impossible to evict someone in SF.
From the outside it looks like you've created the worst of both worlds.
I really hope that's not true
It's sad at first to see that someone who is simply in a different area geographically is afforded so much for so little effort. However when you factor in the cost of living there, it feels (slightly) better. I say slightly, because every time I've visited SF the actual costs of things has not been significantly different. I haven't had to pay rent or mortgage there, though.
Edit: And I don't live somewhere off in the woods, either. The county I live in is in the top 10 wealthiest counties in the country. There is something wrong in SF that is not just cost of living.
Regarding cost of living here, I just did some basic research using Portland as an example and it looks like I could reduce my mortgage by anywhere from 25-50% pretty easily without giving up anything in terms of bedrooms, square footage, location, etc. In terms of rentals, it looks comparable. Of course I probably couldn't get a job earning what I do in SF either. I haven't looked at relocating because (surprise!) we actually like it here and with kids you get pinned down unless things are pretty bad.
It's worth noting that I live in Alameda, the island/town the woman in the article was living in when she got evicted. We are literally having riots (two now) at city hall when tenant-friendly changes to local law have been discussed. They keep passing the ballot, though!
Alameda passed an anti-density measure in the early 70's in response to developers demolishing old Victorians in order to build crappy apartment buildings. That measure has in turn kept high density development from being done _anywhere_ on the island, including the old naval base where there is nothing historic to be preserved (except the ships floating on the water). Current anti-density arguments primarily come from people who don't want additional commute-hours congestion and landlords who are perfectly happy to rent a 2-bedroom apartment for $2200/mo. (Cheap compared to SF!)
For the Canton of Zurich (can't find city-specific info), financial services accounts for 21% of GVA, telecommunications accounts for 27%, industry and mining for 14%, entertainment for another 14%.
Zurich is a major tech and manufacturing hub.
If someone lived 80 miles away from Zurich, in a German town such as Sankt Märgen, Google is telling me that it would take 2h 51m [1]. This tells me that if the woman in the Article made that same distance commute in German/Switzerland with, say, 30 minutes of slack, she would have to leave her house at 3:40am to arrive at work at 7am.
Let me now quote the article:
When the second alarm goes off at 3:45 — a reminder to leave
for the train in 15 minutes — her morning shifts from
leisure to precision.
[1] https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Sankt+M%C3%A4rgen,+Germany/Z...
There are plenty of small towns along the Rhine or near the Bodensee that are commutable to Zurich.
People commute to Geneva from France too.
I'm sure you can find dozens of examples where it isn't.
53 minutes from Singen, DE, to Zurich.
You can buy a 1-2 BR apartment in Singen for <200k euros:
in less than 1.5 hours you can be in Zurich from Konstanz without a transfer (if you insist on 7am sharp then it's one transfer taking less than five minutes). Just in case you want to live in a nice university city and not a little village. And it's way, way cheaper than Zurich https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
If tech companies are drawing people into cities and forcing out those who keep the city itself operating, why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation? Lower income housing? Encourage more remote work or move their headquarters out of the city centers? It seems crazy to me that people get driven out of their homes by real estate developers who re-develop due to tech-wages.
This example is a bit on the fringe, but it does illustrate the daily struggle of many normal people. 2+ hour commute is insane. And before someone comes in with the "why doesn't she get a new job closer to home?", you know it's not that easy - not to mention unfair to suggest that someone should change their entire life because their profession isn't flavor of the month.
Don't they do this already with property and state income taxes?
Locals don't actually want to fix this problem -- ethnic groups are afraid of losing their homes, because historically that's what new housing construction has done.
All of SoMa was built by razing a predominantly black community and replacing it with what is there now. You can go to the SFMOMA and see photos of what it used to look like.
Bay Area housing supply has been growing less than demand for the last 30 years. New housing is needed, regardless of who is employing whom.
The cost of building probably does have an effect on the margin, but it is so much less of a factor than restrictions on what can be built.
http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/millbrae-bart-stati...
From the National Association of Home Builders, it looks like "average" is approximately $9,400 per unit in "fees". Not sure if that's apple to apples with the Bay Area, but in either way that fee just seems kind of crazy. Rows A-C, summing fees, on the Construction Costs table here: https://www.nahbclassic.org/generic.aspx?genericContentID=24...
Then I looked at the zoning map for the municipality, and read the zoning codes.
From outward appearances, it's to keep the poor people away from the rich people. And not just at night when everyone goes home, either. All the time, everywhere. Jobs, schools, commutes, shopping, entertainment. It's the new age of redlining, with a global substitution of bank account sizes for skin colors.
I couldn't tell what degree of intent was there, but on the ground, the zoning board has reinvented the ghetto. The poor folks get to live next to the railroad tracks. Rich folks get to live next to the zone marked as protected wetland/watershed, so that it can never be developed.
The other problem is that housing developers in California have a tendency to build huge, sprawling suburban communities. This just increases sprawl.
Imagine a 1 sq. mile tract of land. Assuming a housing developer builds a ton of two story, single family homes here, each on a 1/4 acre of land, we can calculate that they can build 2560 homes +/- 500 based on topography and landscaping etc. There are no reliable numbers as to the average of units in an apartment building. Therefore, we will have to make some assumptions. Let's go ahead and say that that the developer decides to build apartments instead of tract-homes. Each apartment building will be 2 acres in area. Even if the apartments are huge: 1500 sq ft +, we can calculate that a 2 acre apartment building can have about 20 units per floor. Lets say that these apartment buildings are a modest 2 stories tall. 20 * 2 = 40. That means, covering the same 1 sq. mile of land with modest apartment buildings could create 12800 residences. That's a 500% increase in residences.
In urban centers, zoning laws allow for much taller structures. Structures can be hybridized to allow for both commercial and residential tenants.
Building large, hybrid-use, multi-tenant structures will alleviate some of the pressure on the housing market and lead to shorter commutes for most people. This is because you can fit more people into a smaller land area. It's common sense I'm sure. So, why aren't developers building these structures? The short answer is that they can't. City zoning laws, angry property owners, and the lack of open land in desirable areas all get in the way.
Every year, you'll see parts of the bay area add xx,xxx new jobs but only x,xxx new homes.
Severely limit commercial development in any municipality with less than a certain ratio of houses to jobs.
Or you can zone an area where both commercial and residential development are permitted. Sure, living right next to a metal shop or something isn't the most pleasant thing, but it's really nice if you work at that metal shop.
This is something I saw being developed in my home town before I moved away. Along the main "downtown" strip they built several new 2 story structures where the bottom floors were shops like whole foods and such. On the top floor were various types of apartments. These particular apartments were a bit on the expensive side mostly due to it being a kind of swanky neighborhood right along the beach. That said, the concept can be expanded upon to apply to more affordable areas.
http://urbankchoze.blogspot.com/2014/04/japanese-zoning.html
Interestingly in the mission bay area there's a lot of unused commercial first floor space below residential apartment buildings. Some of it empty since the buildings went up 2012/2013.
Why do you think that is?
Prop 13 is immoral and has not only wreaked havoc on real estate market in the state but has also gutted the state's public education system. It needs to be repealed before any progress on these housing issues can be made. There can be provisions to ensure that people don't lose their homes to rising property taxes...Texas, IIRC, has one that allows property taxes to accrue and only need to be paid when the title of the property changes hands, which seems like a good compromise. But the state's population is going to go up which means we're going to need to build a lot more housing, and our laws need to create an environment where that can happen.
So it's not OK for rising rents to force property elderly owners to sell and move away, but it is OK for rising rents to force elderly renters to move away?
You can't defend property tax deferments for the elderly without also defending rent control for them. Either way you have the same problem of local residents thinking it's OK for everyone else to suffer lower supply and higher costs, as long as they aren't suffering.
That might make rational sense but it is not how homeowners actually behave.
This scales for quite a long time, and is generally how suburbia transforms into, well, east San Jose.
It's not that homeowners make rational choices as a result, it's that over time they are pushed out and the rational choice is made by the larger market.
I have always imagined the benefit to a city of having big businesses move in was to bring in more tax through boosted economic activity that would allow them to improve the city overall. Perhaps I played too much Sim City.
Don't you think people are already trying to do this? There is resistance from many sides, which is, you know, the story here in general.
> why not put the pressure on the companies that are driving the influx of workers and out of control cost of living?
What do you hope to accomplish with this "pressure"? That these companies hire fewer people?
> Lower income housing?
Housing costs are one of those nasty problems where throwing money at it just doesn't work (and I'm saying this as a democratic socialist whose proposed solution to most problems is "tax the rich in order to throw money at it"). Imagine if big tech companies pledged a billion dollars or whatever to build a bunch of housing units. What would happen? This: other developers would pull back on new construction, because the pledge would throw a wrench in the supply/demand, and you'd be right back where you started.
The correct solution is upzoning and, to be blunt, disenfranchisement of NIMBYs.
> If tech companies are drawing people into cities and forcing out those who keep the city itself operating, why not have them subsidize and improve public transportation?
Most of the big ones do: they offer a lot of incentives to not drive, including paying for employees to take public transport or offering shuttle buses (which at least keep them out of cars).
> move their headquarters out of the city centers?
They aren't in city centers: 4 of the Big 5 (Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook) are all headquartered in suburbs. Only Amazon is headquartered in a city center.
> It seems crazy to me that people get driven out of their homes by real estate developers who re-develop due to tech-wages.
Why does that seem crazy? It's just supply-and-demand.
Bay area has a whole bucket of specific problems - but there are general shared trends that extend to other cities with big tech industries.
I think the answer is that with well-managed development, having boosted economies can have few or no negative aspects, but the Bay Area is sorely lacking that right now. As others have said, the lion's share of the blame is not with the tech companies (they're just hiring workers they need), but with the area's terrible NIMBY politics that are blocking the construction of more housing.
...she's a public health adviser for the United States Department of Health and Human Services. I'm pretty sure she's not selling sandwiches.
No-one's saying the $1600/month that she was paying for a 1br in Alameda is "cheap" in any way...
But at $81K salary, her $1000/mo rent is only just touching 20% of her take home, which is in the "very comfortable" range (for reference, most property management companies want you to be "not exceeding 35% of take home income").
1. Live and Work in SF make $80k, and live in small expensive housing
2. Work in SF and make $80k, live in Stockton and get more and pay less for a house, and spend a ton of time commuting
3. Live and Work in Stockton, make way less, live in a place larger than SF but Smaller than #2 and not have to commute
She chose #2 - others make different choices
There may not be which makes option 3 an non starter.
1) Close to retirement age
2) Likely still saving as much as possible so she can retire
3) May have other expenses not detailed in the article, stemming from family needs, health concerns, etc.
Also note that a property management company is evaluating someone from the "risk of non-payment" perspective - not a financial advisor's.
What we need is a solution that encourages and accommodates success, not one that punishes it.
The benefits of centralization & economic opportunity for you but no one else isn't a stable equilibrium or a coherent policy goal. The only way you could plausibly achieve that over the long term is with border controls and immigration policy, something that's explicitly off the table for the interior of the United States per the Constitution.
That's how Silicon Valley became what it is. If a lot of tech companies moved to other cities, it would probably happen there, too.
https://www.axios.com/sky-high-home-prices-are-thwarting-thw...
If it's just left alone, the market will react to this. If a 1BR apt costs $2500/mo, then the price of a sandwich might go to $25 to be able to pay that sandwich-makers $75k/yr wage. And if SFers don't like paying $25 for a sandwich then they can vote for more density.
You're going to need some extremely powerful public policy interventions to push back on a force as powerful in human civilization as urbanization.
It's so much better for society and for the individuals who currently don't live in major cities to centralize into them. You're going to need some extreme regulation to reverse the incentives that have driven the push towards cities worldwide and for thousands of years.
And for what? To protect a relatively tiny constituency of people who currently live in cities and want them to stay small, against the giant national/worldwide population that wants economic opportunity, and to use its resources for something other than cars?
This woman seems to have a really peaceful existence. It would be nice to have such relaxing routines in my own life, especially in the face of stressful realities like a long commute on public transit. It makes me want to develop the fortitude that this woman exercises every single day.
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/10/06/the-true-cost-of-c...
That said, selling and buying houses (or changing jobs) on an ongoing basis so you're right next to your job doesn't seem like a great strategy either. And likely not a plausible one, at least outside of a city, if you have a partner who also goes into an office.
> So each mile you live from work steals $795 per year from you in commuting costs.
> $795 per year will pay the interest on $15,900 of house borrowed at a 5% interest rate.
[0]: http://www.greencaltrain.com/2017/08/dumbarton-corridor-stud...
http://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/beijing-ma...
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/business/2017-08/15/content_306...
Diesel trains will eventually be replaced as well and then we can begin inlining but we should at least plan cities and stations to make public transit easier.
Other places would move heaven and earth to have a place like Silicon Valley and it seems like California is shooting itself in the foot with this self inflicted housing shortage.
She was forced out of her original apartment but unless she had a new situation that required her to have more bedrooms with a lower budget, some part of this extremity was her choice. I think NYT should've chosen a better example if the point they were trying to get across is "tech boom forcing workers out".
Maybe it was the style of writing in the article, but it didn't give me the impression that Ms. James is unhappy with her choice to move.
When the second alarm goes off at 3:45 — a reminder to leave for the train in 15 minutes — her morning shifts from leisure to precision.
She could get up somewhat later to catch her train.
Market dynamics suggest that in a 'free' market, on an individual basis, a person seeks to maximize their value received. So in this case, if this was an open market, the (commute + $81K/year) > any other option that she might choose.
So what are we missing that there isn't at least an equal paying job available in the Central Valley that would cut her commute by 80 - 90% ? I can imagine lots of things that might contribute like pension eligibility, or specialization. But "Public Health Advisor for DHHS" seems to be a position that is available in many cities in the state. I would have liked to read what about this job in this city was so important.
And all of that is to the meta question of salary growth has been flat for a long time, but for a long time people felt they had to keep their job at all costs. A what point does the advantage change? 3% unemployment? 2%? What needs to happen so that people are confident enough to say "pay me more or I'll work somewhere else." ?
As a result of the stuff I wonder about, I feel like there might a tremendous amount of tension in the economy that isn't as visible as one might hope. And I wonder what happens when it snaps. Do we get the 10 - 15% stag-flation of the 70s?
https://www.calpers.ca.gov/page/employers/benefit-programs/r...
Seattle, by any number of metrics, is one of the Boomtowns in America today.
But when you walk down almost all the major streets, there are usually at least one boarded up storefront. House prices are > 10x annual US median salary, and 5-7x the median Seattle salary. Homeless people are everywhere downtown. The "family size" apartments are nearly non-existent until you get a solid 30+ minutes away (everything is being aimed at rich people or young singles); single family houses are (comfortably) priced to people with a solid 200k+ combined salary (you CAN stretch it of course, but memories of prior bubbles suggest stretching it on living situations is a poor choice). This isn't making sense: it does not seem sustainable as a system.
Haven't dug into the numbers for Seattle, but the blue collar factories in the US etc are being pinched by a lack of entrants: no one wants to work for $12/hr and be at the bottom of the totem pole, but the employers claim they can't pay more. I read newspaper stories about this periodically.
Structurally, of course, there is significant financial inequality between municipalities/states/cities and more rural areas, and the concentration of wealth (jobs, culture, hope) in these metro areas is generating salt lake effects in many rural areas.
I think there's a definite snapping point in the economy that the current direction doesn't seem to be changing. I think, frankly, the US economy has metaphorical 'toxic' areas that haven't been honestly addressed and it's generating a lot of resentment.
The way you should look at it: Take your savings. If you suddenly could get no income, no welfare, etc: How many months/years can you maintain your current standard of living before you run out of money?
Being paid more in absolute, and even saving more in absolute, doesn't guarantee a longer time till you go broke. It's the ratio of your savings to the monthly cost of living.
I could move to the Bay area and get paid enough to save, say, $5K more per year than I do now, I'm still in worse shape because of the COL. Effectively, even though I'm saving more in absolute terms, I'll not be able to retire as early as I can now.
The only down side would be buying an actual house. A house in Atlanta would be 3-5x my yearly Atlanta salary. A similar house in SF would cost 7-8x my yearly SF salary.
Calculation:
(0.75*(1.00 - 0.14)) - (1.00 - 0.30) =
0.645 - 0.70 =
-0.055 =
-5.5%Entrenched residents who oppose new construction, primarily. Look at the recent kerfuffles involving residents opposing the replacement of parking lots with housing.
Also, the big tech jobs centers (apple/facebook/Google) are in the south bay, and many of their employees (especially those without kids) choose to live in San Francisco because it is a much more interesting vibrant interesting place than Mountain View, Menlo Park, or Cupertino. Someone living in Noe Valley and working at Apple could already live closer to work, for much less, if that's what they wanted.
So adding high density housing will allow some people to live closer, and some to live farther, but it will add incrementally more traffic. That's fine, but let's at least address the infrastructure in tandem, if not first.
Sure, traffic can be an issue, but I'd imagine train delays are roughly as big of a problem.
In this case, it looks like her 3hr 20min commute could become 1hr 30min with a bus that goes from Stockton.
Why has nobody done this?
You're vastly underestimating how bad rush hour traffic is. Also, the longer the bus is on the road the more likely it will be to be in it. Then you run into the same problem where you're getting a 5am bus for a 9am job even though it's only a 1hr drive on paper
It was a long hard battle for me to be able to work from home, and yes, I sometimes do miss out on face-to-face interaction, but going to the office 2 instead of 5 days a week is still a huge win - I'm not in a car out there, making traffic worse for you. You're welcome.
Can we please solve the supposed "interaction" problem with some nice digital pens and white-boards and web cams and just .... work from anywhere?
Or we could actually build some nice mass transit in this country. But now I'm just talking crazy.
But not everyone wants to work remotely. I asked my friend, and he said he would never work at a remote company because, "I enjoy having face to face conversations with my coworkers about work."
She could also get a 3200 dollar apartment where she used to live, have at least two rooms, sleep late and still have 3550 left every month.
Maybe medical insurance and such things that we europeans don't need to buy are very expensive, but apart from that it doesn't seem very difficult to live on 3500 after rent for a single person. My whole family spends less than that after rent, four people in one of the most expensive cities in the world, Copenhagen.
I must be missing part of the equation here.
But I do see your point - she could (and many do) live closer, pay more, and sleep more.
In any case, I feel the headline is pretty sensationalistic, even if she wants to live where she lives, she could probably get up at 5 and drive to work.
Perhaps her personal circumstances didn't allow for it (Or she chose not to, which is fine too), but a home can be purchased for as little as 3.5% down (FHA) + closing costs. For someone with an 81K salary, their borrowing limit is around ~460k (@43% FHA DTI Limit [1]), and in 2014 (When the person in the article was evicted) there were plenty of homes in that price range in the East Bay. That DTI won't be easy, but neither is a 6-8hr daily commute.
In fact, there are homes/condos right now [2] still in that price range. The crisis is for those making the median household income of say, 52.9K in Oakland, thats the income where one is basically shut out of the housing market.
[1] https://www.fha.com/fha_requirements_debt [2] https://www.redfin.com/city/13654/CA/Oakland/filter/property...
- She apparently can't relocate as she makes $81K as a federal employee. Most commenters seem to point out they make far less for equally brutal commute, and don't even complain.
- She also works from home every now and then. Something which most other people like Chefs, Janitors, Barbers who are paid way less, don't even have an option to do by very occupational design.
- She qualifies for pension after some time. There fore it's not too much to expect somebody to make a little sacrifice for a few decades worth of getting paid without doing anything at all.
- Most other commenters seem to point out that they would love to have a job which pays $81K, with benefits and a pension even at that commute time. Therefore this is not a problem, this is actually an opportunity.
Most comments seem to have a 'Cry me a river' kind of a sentiment.
That's more than enough for me, don't think I could stomach any longer than that!
2. Stockton has a median income of $45k vs $81k in SF [factfinder.census.gov] - so in SF she is right in the middle, in Stockton she is at twice the median income (for households) is it really surprising to anyone that she can get more for her housing $ in Stockton?
What this lady needs is a sweet GSXR-1000 to split all the way to paradise. I don't know why more people don't take advantage of the fact that lane splitting is legal here, it's a fantastic way to cut commute time in half. Plus you get free or super cheap parking pretty much wherever you want.
Seriously though, the amount of additional risk of life/limb/etc you'd be taking by biking to work isnt worth saving an extra hour given the raised attentiveness you have to be on throughout the commute.
What we all really need is cheap selfdriving vanpool networks that dynamically optimizes routes based on traffic flows. or better yet hub-to-hub VTOL human transport drones. In all honesty I think we'll see those before we'll see legislative action helping the housing crisis.
I'm happy this lady found a solution she was happy with. It's not like she's commuting to the salt mines in death race 2000...living in the Bay Area is a tangled web for anyone who doesn't have high 6 figures in disposable income. I gave up in disgust and voted with my feet.
Doesn't really change anything.
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/03/09/our-lives/...
If it were me I'd get a van and put a bed in the back so I could lie down.
I ended up doing the same commute when I started a new job last week. I'm already dying to move into my new apartment. I don't know how these people do it.
And to be clear, the hour+ commute wouldn't be so bad if it were just driving. But stop-and-go traffic does not a relaxing drive make.
Your landlord knows how much you'll pay if they know you work in the gay area and will tolerate a 5-hour commute.
It's the same reason NJ is becoming more expensive. They know you'll pay because you're willing to ride PATH every day to get to work.
Don't commute more than an hour to work. If you can't afford to live close to your work, find different work.
People like this are making it even worse, and not just in SF, in NYC, in Boston, in and around Raleigh, in ATX, everywhere.
Commuting is making it harder for other people and yourself.