The Tech Community Must Invest More In San Francisco | Hacker News Reader

The Tech Community Must Invest More In San Francisco

benparr.com

41 pointsMystalic54 comments

I've lived all over the country, and I've never seen such a big divide between two groups (wealthy tech and everyone else) as I have in the Bay Area.

The last time I was there, I realized why most of the protests for economic reform and "the 1%" are so strong in the Bay Area: because it is so blatantly thrown in people's faces! The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday. Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).

I think the thing that probably makes it worse in SF is, as mentioned in the article, many people don't work in SF. I don't know of many companies in Chicago, NYC, or Dallas providing free transportation to their headquarters in the suburbs, people that live in those places usually work in there too.

I'm not sure what can be done about this; Google isn't moving their headquarters to SF (nor should they). At some point this issue is going to boil over and something will have to change.

> The streets are filled with Porsches and Teslas driving by the many homeless people in SF everyday.

One might argue that the homeless people wouldn't be there if the fabulous wealth weren't also there. That they can even be there should be a testament to the city's tolerance. In many places, local government does everything they can to remove them. SF has much more social conscience than a lot of people give it credit for.

Tolerance is great, but safety should always be the primary concern.

A significant amount of homeless people are homeless, sadly, because of mental conditions. I'm not saying that most homeless people are going to attack you in the street, but things like schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder can be extremely dangerous if they go untreated.

> One might argue that the homeless people wouldn't be there if the fabulous wealth weren't also there. That they can even be there should be a testament to the city's tolerance.

Hmm, I see it more as SF, or society in general, being irresponsible for the homeless rather than being tolerant of them being there. In fact, this brings up another point I was talking about with someone else. That when people say "the homeless problem in SF", they don't actually care about the homeless' well-being. They only care about how the homeless disturbs their daily routine.

Actually, having talked with a number of homeless folks and done outreach with our Church, a significant portion stay for the weather. Seriously, it just doesn't get too hot or too cold when you're living outside here so you're pretty much ok even if you have to just sleep in your clothes one night. I talked to a guy who had walked here from Utah spending time across the northern Nevada and some in Central California.

That said, many of the homeless we dealt with were also dealing with challenges in mental illness, whether it was depression, schizophrenia, or addiction. That was much more instrumental in keeping them homeless than any sort of structured neglect.

If the tech giants endowed a single mental health facility that would serve the homeless population of San Francisco and one in the South Bay it would do more good for more people than any other single act. Suggestions on how we could pull that off are welcome.

Suggestions on how we could pull that off are welcome.

That's the problem, isn't it? Is such a thing even accomplishable?

We're teetering on an edge. We don't know if we are creating a future of clean and shiny and modern technology for everybody or if we're creating a dirty and scarred and run down begging-for-please-schedule-me-doctor services for non-millionares in society. More technological improvements are needed before we can uplift everybody into Comfort and Prosperity, but in the meantime, do we just let those who aren't us suffer?

There are probably half a dozen significant projects with 100x to 1000x personal, life-impacting ROI we could undertake as a society, but there's nobody strong enough to advance our agendas.

Yes it is (the problem).

In one future the world is ruled by corporations, public services such as internet, medical care, and transportation are provided by them as long as you follow their rules.

In one future the governments seize corporate earnings through taxation to fund basic services resulting in a incestuous and tense symbiotic relationship between companies and governments.

Depending on which side of the bed I wake up on I think one is more likely than the other.

Corporations are already paying taxes pretty much the world over, for a very long time now. Why characterize this normal, standard, nearly universal policy as "incestuous and tense"? Why is this "seizing" and not just normal tax paying?

Heh, you missed the drama of the whole "fair share" taxes debate that Google, Apple, and others are embroiled in both in the UK and the US? How about the Amazon sales tax debate?

Corporations do pay taxes, governments around the world are girding themselves to demand they pay even more taxes. That was the 'tenseness' of which I spoke.

Such projects are usually the product of extremely focused community organizing. You would need to find someone willing to spend a lot of time and effort to make it a reality. One person can push such a thing through, but they'd need a lot of support and the ability to pay their bills while they're working tirelessly.

Community organizing is really a lost art.

Portland treats the homeless well and its definitely not due to fabulous wealth.

The homeless are not who we should focus on when talking about wealth inequality. Even though it makes a good visual, there are too many other factors at play such as mental illness.

It's the working poor and the rich that are the true divide.

The northwest's homeless problem is a bit different from the rest of the countries; you'll see similar patterns in Seattle, Vancouver (BC), Portland, and even Spokane. There is something about "skid row" that has never went away in that area.

Exactly. Now, you can find just 3 groups of people:

* single and DINKY hipsters

* super rich with kids

* very poor with kids (no option to leave - basically stuck)

The problem with structure like this is that, when the next recession hits (and it will hit), the first two groups will leave the city immediately.

I have feeling that solution for SF is to make it more "kids friendly" because people with kids tend to be more involved in community and they are less mobile.

Rent is absolutely absurd. Most big cities have this problem, but its especially pronounced in SF (probably moreso than everywhere but NYC).

I keep posting variations on this, but this link is relevant here: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2012/05/face... . "Rent is absolutely absurd" because of basic economics at work: SF is a desirable place to live in many respects, but it's virtually impossible to build new housing there for reasons discussed at the link. In the face of exploding demand and constant supply, prices rise. For more on this, see The Rent is Too Damn High: http://www.amazon.com/The-Rent-Damn-High-ebook/dp/B0078XGJXO. Most big cities have this problem, as you note, and yet most commentators don't discuss the obvious connection between supply limits and prices, per my essay here: https://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the-dot... .

Regular people move from SF and places like it to the sunbelt, where development is easy and real estate prices more reasonable, and the people who have the money and/or need to be in SF stay/move there.

From the quoted LA Times piece: "Unlike in previous booms, the tech industry isn’t creating as many middle-class jobs..."

I don't believe this. There are tons of Software Engineer jobs paying around 80-100k in SF. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.

However, I agree with this piece. The tech companies and the people of San Francisco as a whole need to really change things. A big part of that change probably needs to happen at the local government level where there is so much incompetence and a decent amount of corruption: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...

SF wants to be a big city, but many of the residents are actively refusing policies that will allow for better services, denser urban areas and other benefits of being a large city. Otherwise, San Francisco will continue to be the largest small town in America, with problems like homelessness and income inequality worse than a city ten times it's size (say, New York City).

You make a great point, but would you agree with the following?:

There are tons of Finance jobs paying around 80-100k in NY. That salary, in that city, puts you firmly in the middle class.

Is this now (perceived as) middle class?

"Is this now (perceived as) middle class?"

Umm, yes? It's the upper middle class, or the professional class if you prefer a different way of categorizing members of the middle class.

Now, there are many alternative models of the US class system, some of which would say that a finance job is in the working class - a well-paid worker, but still working class. However, it seems your complaint was based on the salary, not the type of job.

I need a little help to understand your statement. Do you consider a "finance job paying around 80-100k in NY" to be working class? Blue collar? Upper class? Capitalist class? Blue bloods?

I'd agree with that, with the qualification that $80-100k may actually be a bit low. In the United States overall, the upper quintile of income starts at about $102k [1], so an income between $80 and $100k would place you in the upper-middle class.

However, it's important to keep in mind that the cost of living in San Francisco or New York is much higher than average. Median rent for a one-bedroom apartment is $2,795 [2] in San Francisco, that alone is over $33k a year. The SF cost of living index is 161.3 and the Manhattan cost of living index is 223.9. In other words, $100k in Manhattan is equivalent to about $45k in an average place in the US, firmly in the middle quintile. The Living Wage Project suggests it takes at least $100k to be effectively middle class in New York [3].

It's really not a perception thing, it's reality.

1: US Census 2011 Household Income Table HINC-05

2: http://priceonomics.com/the-san-francisco-rent-explosion/

3: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/cities-high-cost-of...

The numbers from the census are household income. The average household has nearly 2 workers.

Yes. That's definitely middle class. Especially living in an expensive area like San Francisco.

Its quite the middle class. Especially if you avail yourself of public transport and live out in Queens half an hour away.

Yes, its a great hardship to have to take the train. But thousands of people do it and have quite a comfortable life at 80 to 100K.

For the location, it indeed affords you what everyone thinks of as a middle-class lifestyle.

This is a pretty sad indication of how bad urban development policies have gotten.

Articles like this one always seem to imply that the techies are all sitting comfortably with a giant money vault like Scrooge McDuck, laughing at everyone else and refusing to share. That just isn't the case. In reality, few of them actually have any real financial security. Most work for startups that are living on borrowed time and may not be here in a year or two. Few of them own any real assets such as real estate, so they end up renting just like everyone else. How many who ride these buses even own cars?

They all know in the back of their minds that the current boom is just as transient as any other, meaning they could be unemployed and forced to leave at any time. It is difficult to build a strong community on such shaky ground.

You forgot the bit where the tech giants are sitting on warchests with (tens of) $billions in actual giant money vaults like Scrooge McDuck, laughing at everyone else and refusing to share.

Articles like this one always seem to imply that the techies are all sitting comfortably with a giant money vault like Scrooge McDuck, laughing at everyone else and refusing to share.

Articles like this one also ignore the simple, obvious solution: remove height restrictions and mandatory parking minimums. Developers will build up, supply will increase, and housing costs will fall.

The problem is that many of the same people complaining about high prices don't seem to like the only real means of alleviating the issue; I wrote more about this here: https://jseliger.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/connecting-the-dot... .

See the same problem in Austin, Texas. People that have lived here forever (justifiably) aren't thrilled with the fact that rent has gone way up as a result of the city's boom. But the very same people actively oppose the construction of new housing.

I really don't think people understand that if the demand increases, the way to keep the cost form increasing as much is to increase the supply.

Here's my proble. I have no problem paying taxes and investing in my community. But I'd never want to invest in a city as absurd as San Francisco.

It is interesting to observe how people in the finance industry in New York view taxation. They'll complain about it, but by and large they're pretty supportive of the whole system. Which is important, because they're responsible for some large fraction of the tax base, as well as a lot of corporate investment in the community. I think Wall Street is happy to invest in New York because the city isn't totally dysfunctional. The people who pay the taxes see benefits from public services, whether its the police or the transit infrastructure. It's a place where people making a million dollars a year will ride the bus or subway to work and so feel invested in the public services they pay for.

In San Francisco, the crazies and the hippies are firmly in charge. And as long as that's the case, why would you want to give them your money?

The techies like SF's culture more than NYC's. Maybe they actually like a city run eclectically vs. the stod and boring north east style.

I've never noticed anything very disfunctional about SF: the police seem to work out, the public transportation seems to work out, there is a homeless problem but not an entirely huge one, tourists seem to be safe, the city has great parks.

Maybe you just don't like Californian liberals?

http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...

Nothing in that article harks at serious disfunctions that would cause me to avoid living there.

I would rather live in San Francisco than anywhere in Idaho (despite Idaho being a nice place to visit). Or any city in the south for that matter.

The article isn't about wanting to live there or not. That's largely a function of things that have little to do with the city government (climate, night life, etc). The article urges tech companies to invest in San Francisco, and the issues raised in the article are totally relevant to evaluating why they might not want to. Who wants to pour money into a city that is so badly mismanaged?

I am a little confused, not living in SF (visited once by accident in the 80's). If I read this right, most of the tech companies are not in SF, but the employees really like to live in SF. So, the tech companies bus their people on exclusive transportation to the tech company.

Is part of the problem that the suburbs (that I would imagine benefit tax-wise) are not doing a good job at being an attractive place to live? Is it an industrial park situation? It seems like some land developer has a custom audience for a development.

I have read jwz's blog for the DNA Lounge for a long time and get the vibe SF doesn't want those type of venues. It would seem a more entertainment friendly community would prosper in attracting young SF residents.

Its because lots of young people don't want to live in Silicon Valley proper (basically Santa Clara County to the south). Santa Clara County is heavily suburban, with some very poor areas mixed in with some very affluent areas (Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills). I find it hard to believe that rent is higher in SF than Sunnyvale, for example-young people just want to have their cake and eat it too-high paying tech jobs AND living in SF.

And why wouldn't they? Why should they be shackled to SV, considering the tenuous logistical and geographical requirements of their jobs?

I agree with parent, SV is missing a trick here: it doesn't need to be as soulless as it is.

I've visited SV a few times and the impression I got is that a lot of it is all of the worst parts of suburbia turned up to 11. Lots of strip-malls, largely unwalkable and concrete as far as the eye can see.

That's not all of SV, but quite a bit of it.

Part of the reason I moved away from the Bay Area is that no one seems to care about it. Everyone is too busy working all the time for their start up, and so there's very little in the way of community. Oakland seems to be the one exception, where it is cheap enough that you can live without dedicating your life to work. Surprise surprise, it turns out to be the place with the interesting restaurant and arts culture.

What about stories like [1]? Is that restricted to the "bad parts of town"? The impression I've always gotten is Oakland was the bad part of town.

(This is an honest question - not trying to be sarcastic. I havn't lived in the Bay area.)

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57599011/violence-in-o...

My perspective is that the tech community at large - quite some time ago - abdicated integrating into the rest of the world. I invite a careful read of Barlow's bombast[1] from the early '90s and consider how that has played out into today.

With the techie desire to remove politics and marketing and the overweening wish to be logical instead of emotional comes the abdication of dealing with the messy, compromising, and non-technical parts of the world and thus, the disengagement.

My one experience in SF was generally negative: homeless people were sleeping all over the sidewalks, and the beggars were aggressive. There was a great deal of wealth in evidence, but I didn't see the wealth translated into meaningful assistance.

I guess I would expect to see some sort of mission building in the area I was in where people could sleep & use restrooms and not be on the sidewalk.

Anyway, I think it's time the tech community grokked that the Internet is and is not a separate space and really got serious about engaging with the world (again).

[1] https://homes.eff.org/~barlow/Declaration-Final.html

You say that the beggars were aggressive. Does this mean that they asked everyone for change, and even asked you whenever they saw you, or does it mean that they would touch you and/or get in your face and speak violently to you?

If the latter, I'm terribly sorry for your bad experience. I've been living here for nearly three years now and hope that you find some comfort in the knowledge that your experience was a radical outlier. Every hobo, pusher, and prostitute that I've run into gracefully accepts "No, I'm sorry/thank you." for an answer. If the former, I suspect that "persistent but non-violent and/or polite" is a much clearer label for these sorts of folks. When you describe someone as "aggressive", it also carries connotations of "violent".

Also, the city's nested web of ineffectual homeless outreach/support programs is an entirely separate issue. (As is the city's "Make $60->$80k per year? Get a condo for 1/6th to 1/8th market price!" program. [This is their "low income housing ownership" program, BTW, which is entirely separate from their low-income housing rental program. (The rental program actually serves a pretty appropriate segment of the population.)])

EDIT: It's widely reported that free-of-cost meals are available to anyone who wants them in SF. I've seen documentation that indicates that -as long as one can get moving by 0700- one can roam the city and never be without three squares a day. I know that I live within four blocks of two active food banks that serve the homeless, and within eight of a very large church-run organization that does the same. See also, this guy's comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5297419

I've never seen anyone actually starving in the city, and I've walked through almost all parts of it, at all hours of the day and night. Folks get clothed and folks get fed. Folks often don't get psych medications or hospitalization that they need, but that's a whole other story. :/

They are panhandling for drug/alcohol money probably, given that food is not that hard to come by. The same is true in almost any big city, though.

Aggressive panhandling to me is having little kids grab onto my legs and try to drag me. That only happens to me in non-developed countries.

Some are very likely panhandling for drug money. Others are probably panhandling for better food than they can find from the outreach shelters. (I've seen many folks in this coffee shop that I frequent from the nearby homeless shelter.)

I would be supremely unhappy if some little kid latched on to my leg and tried to drag me. How is one supposed to handle that sort of situation?

They were... I guess the word is rude? Hustling with an edge? A sort of enterpenurial, even. This is not common in my experience with beggars. No violence, mind you. Just real pushy to close their deal.

I'm glad to hear that the meals organizations are effective. There were so many homeless. :-/

Honestly, there are so many homeless in the city in part because of the "effectiveness" of the various homeless outreach programs. (Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad that there are very few people in the city that go unfed or unclothed.)

If I knew of a well run non-profit organization that would strategically and practically invest in San Francisco, I would donate.

I can't really think of any that aren't highly political (and thus, not practical). Anyone know of any?

My local donations of choice - not sure which you'd consider political:

* SF Bicycle Coalition: Definitely recommend if you're a fellow biker https://co.clickandpledge.com/advanced/default.aspx?wid=6334...

* Planned Parenthood: They are very happy to receive donations to keep providing medical services. To donate to local chapter, select "Shasta Pacific" here: https://secure.ppaction.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=pp_ppo...

* Village Harvest: they harvest community orchards and gardens (which you can also volunteer at on weekends). http://www.villageharvest.org/donate

Isn't this what taxes are for?

The cities problem isn't revenue, there are plenty of much better managed places that are nicer than San Francisco, without the massive tax base that the city enjoys. The people should be embarrassed at the state of the city. There are pretty clearly major systematic issues.

The city is trying to address a bunch of societal issues, while failing at the basics. There is a reason it's considered the worst run big city in the US [1]. Why should people that are already paying very high taxes pay even more, or address other peoples problems directly? I don't really see how this problem somehow belongs to the tech industry.

1: http://www.sfweekly.com/2009-12-16/news/the-worst-run-big-ci...

Yes, that was my point.

San Francisco needs an income tax. So many people enjoy the benefits of living in SF but pay little for its upkeep.

San Francisco has double the budget of some states for 600,000 people, do you really think money is the problem? 40% of the city revenue goes to non-profits as it is. The problems the city has is due entirely to mismanagement, incompetence, and a misguided do-gooder populace.

Comparing SF to Wyoming...why its like comparing England to Uganda.

I moved to SF from Boston. The taxes in California are sky-high compared to most other states. Yet the environment (other than the weather, that is) is significantly worse. One has to wonder where all the public money is going.

A while back, I moved from Huntsville, AL to SF. HSV city sales tax + state sales tax brought the tax on everyday things to 8%. The SF + state sales tax is 9%. For that additional 1%, I get so much more than I got in the Southeast.

CA state income tax rates are up to 7.3% higher than AL's, BUT AL's maximum tax bracket is 5% of any taxable income over $3k. CA's maximum tax bracket is 12.3% of any income over $500k. If you're making $38k (or maybe $48k) or less, you're better off, tax-wise to be in CA. The 6% CA bracket starts at $27,897. [0][1]

[0] http://revenue.alabama.gov/incometax/itfaq01.cfm (Search for "income tax rates")

[1] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/forms/2012_california_tax_rates_and_e... (Search for "tax rate schedules")

...but it's all about the South Bay!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com