Articles
   
       
Pics/Video
       
Wake 101
   
       
       
Shop
Search
 
 
 
 
 
Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
WakeWorld Home
Email Password
Go Back   WakeWorld > Non-Wakeboarding Discussion

Share 
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-11-2015, 9:05 AM Reply   
Ellis Act and No Faut evictions are legal ways for building owners and Landlords to evict tenants that were normally protected under "rent controlled" housing.

San Francisco is going there a huge shift. Many Big money company's are setting up camp in San Francisco and bringing high paying jobs and employees with them. These people can afford to pay 2 and 3 times the rent current San Franciscans are paying.

Entire community's are being evicted and replaced with more High end Homes and apartments.

What are your thoughts is it survival of the fittest or should the government or state be watching out or creating housing for low income people
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-11-2015, 11:25 AM Reply   
On one hand you you have sections of the city where entire housing units or neighborhoods are run down because owners can't charge enough for rent because of rent control to fix up the place. It creates sections of the city that are not that nice. Hi Tech is creating housing shortages and developers are coming in and buying property in run down hoods and re-building fancy and expensive housing units causing people that can't afford to live in the city any more. Some are saying 33 thousand people displaced.

On the other hand when developers are done what we are left with is nice homes where there used to be run down ones and the dynamics of the neighborhood are changing.

Example here in SF hunters point was no place you wanted to be after dark. Now the place is the next up and coming place to live. All because high end rental units are bringing in hi tec workers that are changing the landscape.
Old     (meathead65)      Join Date: Sep 2006       10-11-2015, 2:28 PM Reply   
I work in and around SF quite a bit and I'm not sure I would describe Hunters Point as up and coming....... You're still risking your life being down there after dark.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-12-2015, 10:45 AM Reply   
^^^ I hear ya^^^


"Disparaging"
One of the many ^ things they were saying about what they called "Rich White Folks" moving into the neighborhood is that they come home from work and the go inside and they don't interact with each other. They had made it out that this type of behavior was not what the city was built on. And that the city was a place where people walked the streets and interacted with each other but in these hi tech community's there is no sense of community because the techies simply go to work and then go home and interact with people "on line"

So if that's true It's not that important that your in a super safe community I guess? If you have secure underground parking and you could drive into your parking structure and then go up to your secure home then I guess it's possable you don't need prime secure real estate.

Look at what Sun micro systems & Facebook has done for East Palo Alto. That place was a war zone 10 years ago, And now The face book campus is located right in the center of it. IMO The dynamics of East Palo Alto and other places have change for the better because of campus environments like places such as Facebook and other Hy tech workplaces.
Old     (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: NJ       10-13-2015, 9:34 AM Reply   
This is communism 101... Price controls are evil and do not work. For whatever the intended purpose may be, there are massive detrimental effects.

In a free market both landlord and tenant agree to price and length of lease... Be it month to month, annual, or longer. When lease is up renewal depends on both parties agreeing and any contractual obligation. Government has no place here. If these low income people really want to steal from others to stay in a high cost of living area they should at least have the decency to hold the gun to the victim's head themselves rather than outsource their violence to government.
Old     (migs)      Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SF Bay Area       10-13-2015, 1:40 PM Reply   
Its survival of fittest in San Francisco & the SF Peninsula. Ain't no joke out here.
Old     (jarrod)      Join Date: May 2003       10-14-2015, 9:03 AM Reply   
I work in the mission district where this is happening clear as day. The mission is dirty and disgusting. I walk past homeless, feces, trash, and the smell the rotten waste on a daily basis. It's filthy.

In recent years companies like mine have moved in for affordable office space, and our employees have moved into the area as well. We're talking about young workers in their 20's making 75-100K a year entry level and working up. Way up.

Recently we've seen threats like this. I work for DoubleDutch.
Attached Images
 
Old     (jarrod)      Join Date: May 2003       10-14-2015, 9:05 AM Reply   
I have mixed feeling on the issue. I get it. But without grow, and contributions by tech and growing companies, what happens to the local business. The coffee shops, restaurants, and other family owned businesses. If tech left the area, many of these business would shut down and Mission street would be a ghost town.
Old     (grant_west)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-14-2015, 10:41 AM Reply   
That light pole poster is pretty lame. But you could feel the distane from the fully sleeved single speed, smoker bike messenger hipster or hipsters that populate the Mission long before this came I frequent the mission and there is defiantly a class war. But honestly the mission has always been in a state of transformation. Lots of Artist and Musicians have chosen the mission for their home, and seeing how the mission is one of the many locations on the hot spot list its doubt the "hipsters" are feeling the push.

During that last housing bubble a friend that was living in Pac Heights, the landlord gave her a check for $30k to move out!!! I was pretty blowen away that landlords had to bribe people to please move out. But I guess that's what kind of environment rent control creates.
Old     (DenverRider)      Join Date: Feb 2013       10-15-2015, 3:53 PM Reply   
I think there are two obvious sides to this whole thing.

Poor people in service jobs in high rent districts are complaining that they can't afford to live anywhere near their jobs.

Rich people in high rent districts don't want any low income housing but they still need someone to serve them a cup of coffee and a Big Mac.

Both sides have a point and there aren't any simple solutions. You could raise wages in high rent districts so that service employees can afford housing but that can cause prices to go up too high. Rich people could make their own burgers and coffee but ..... yeah right. Employers could provide on-site housing for their employees but that reeks of slavery minus the whip and chains. As fossil fuels become more scarce, populations rise, and transportation becomes more costly than rent this will become a problem beyond the control of the kinds of folks who like to control people.
Old     (bcrider)      Join Date: Apr 2006       10-15-2015, 4:59 PM Reply   
This is exactly the issue we have north of the border in Vancouver. You are hard pressed to find a condo for under $ 500k and with the foreign buyers buying everything up realestate is sky rocketing. The younger generation can't even afford to live within the city anymore. An old 1930-1960 1500 sqft house that has barely ever seen a renovation will be over a million dollars just for the 5,00-6,000 sqft land. I live an hour out of Vancouver and our housing pricing is getting brutal. In the 3 years I purchased our new house my friend and real estate agent figures I have already made $60-70k on my house. My neighbors house which is all 1994 original besides (which means arborite counters, no back splash, linoleum in the kitchen, and brass accents, paint at 4,955 sqft on 10k lot just sold for $ 695.00. It needs a $ 50k renovation and the house isn't worth over $ 700k. It's crazy.
Old     (Cabledog)      Join Date: Dec 2013       10-15-2015, 7:49 PM Reply   
5,000 sqft home for 695K (is that Canadian dollars? - 541K US) doesn't sound so bad. My home's not that big but the cost per sqft was more. Seattle suburbs are way more and Seattle's sick dream is to be just like liberal freak show sanctuary city of SF.

The majority of the younger generation hasn't been able to afford homes in any big metro cities for generations (except for maybe cesspools like Detroit) other than during periods of recession when the housing bubble bursts. It's just more obvious now that there are less good blue collar middle class manufacturing jobs (60Kin the 80's - 100K or more In today's dollars) where a college degree was not needed. They have been replaced by tech jobs and those people are buying homes and condos.
Old     (migs)      Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: SF Bay Area       10-16-2015, 8:03 AM Reply   
My next door neighbor this week just sold his 2 bedroom, 2 bath, 1 car garage 1150sq ft house built in 1941 for $1.2million.
Its beyond crazy here.
Old     (wakemitch)      Join Date: Jun 2005       10-16-2015, 8:30 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
I think there are two obvious sides to this whole thing.

Poor people in service jobs in high rent districts are complaining that they can't afford to live anywhere near their jobs.

Rich people in high rent districts don't want any low income housing but they still need someone to serve them a cup of coffee and a Big Mac.

Both sides have a point and there aren't any simple solutions. You could raise wages in high rent districts so that service employees can afford housing but that can cause prices to go up too high. Rich people could make their own burgers and coffee but ..... yeah right. Employers could provide on-site housing for their employees but that reeks of slavery minus the whip and chains. As fossil fuels become more scarce, populations rise, and transportation becomes more costly than rent this will become a problem beyond the control of the kinds of folks who like to control people.
^THIS

The wealthy often forget that they need those low income workers for them to live their lifestyle
Old     (bcrider)      Join Date: Apr 2006       10-16-2015, 9:30 AM Reply   
D(Cabledog) what does it matter if it's in Canadian vs US? I don't earn US dollars so it's still $ 695k to me.
Old     (Cabledog)      Join Date: Dec 2013       10-16-2015, 10:05 PM Reply   
[QUOTE=bcrider;1924429]D(Cabledog) what does it matter if it's in Canadian vs US? I don't earn US dollars so it's still $ 695k to me.[/QUOTE

We're in different countries so it helps me put it in perspective.
Old     (cadunkle)      Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: NJ       10-19-2015, 9:42 AM Reply   
Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverRider View Post
I think there are two obvious sides to this whole thing.

Poor people in service jobs in high rent districts are complaining that they can't afford to live anywhere near their jobs.

Rich people in high rent districts don't want any low income housing but they still need someone to serve them a cup of coffee and a Big Mac.

Both sides have a point and there aren't any simple solutions. You could raise wages in high rent districts so that service employees can afford housing but that can cause prices to go up too high. Rich people could make their own burgers and coffee but ..... yeah right. Employers could provide on-site housing for their employees but that reeks of slavery minus the whip and chains. As fossil fuels become more scarce, populations rise, and transportation becomes more costly than rent this will become a problem beyond the control of the kinds of folks who like to control people.
There is a simple solution. Abandon any attempts at central planning. It hasn't worked very well for any regime in history, and tends to hurt the poor the most.

Free market solutions may include significantly higher wages for low level service jobs with associated price increases for the customer, as those people are slowly pushed out to be too far to commute for either time or net income reasons. Maybe if the number of Starbucks, McDonalds, and other general low paying retail storefronts significantly declines in these areas customers just travel farther to buy what they want at a price they want. Maybe more automation to reduce the people required to run a store, up to Starbucks and McDonalds or whatever becoming more or less a vending machine. Maybe entirely different solutions, it doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks may "solve" the "problem". Without central planning you don't need a single all knowing genius mind reader with knowledge of millions of people, transactions, facts, statistics, etc.

Reply
Share 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:58 AM.

Home   Articles   Pics/Video   Gear   Wake 101   Events   Community   Forums   Classifieds   Contests   Shop   Search
Wake World Home

 

© 2019 eWake, Inc.    
Advertise    |    Contact    |    Terms of Use    |    Privacy Policy    |    Report Abuse    |    Conduct    |    About Us