Rent Increases Outpace Country Three-Fold — Mission, Well, Ridiculous

Courtesy Trulia.com/local

Courtesy Trulia.com/local

SF Gate reports today on Trulia’s heat map.

In case you haven’t heard, it’s hard out there for a tenant. San Francisco rent price increases are outpacing the nation– more than three-fold. In December, rental prices in San Francisco rose 10.6%, which is higher than the national average of 3.0%. Trulia’s Rental Price heatmap above captures the median price per bedroom (not entire apt) for some of the popular San Francisco neighborhoods. Deep reds indicate high-cost areas, and yellow and green designate more affordable neighborhoods….. If we can use the words “affordable” and “San Francisco apartment rentals” in the same sentence.

Pacific Heights is still the most expensive, but the Mission is not far behind and the SF Gate piece reports a two bedroom at more than $4,000 a month. READ MORE .

Here’s the latest from Craigslist. Good luck out there!

craigs

Filed under: Mobile, Today's Mission

70 Comments

  1. Tilly

    It would be helpful to understand how the heat map was calculated. I suspect it captures rental listing prices, which means it does not represent the prices people actually pay. It would be really interesting, and more accurate, to see data incorporating actual rents paid, so that the impact of rent control is captured. In my building, you have a guy in a studio paying $1600, two 1 bdrs renting for $1100 & $1200, and a lady in a third 1 bdr paying $650. Market rate on the 1 bdr flats is probably $2500-$3000. I think your map captures a heat map of market rate for vacant apartments, not a map of actual rents paid across the city. Interesting, but only 1/2 the picture.

  2. Godzuki

    (drumroll, please)

    And……HERE COME THE TROLLS!

  3. John

    Look how cheap the Sunset is. And it’s only a few miles away.

    • landline

      $1033 per bedroom is not cheap. And that figure is an average of all apartment sizes. What is the going rate for a studio or 1BR in that neighborhood? Such information would better inform us about the income required to rent an apartment.

      • John

        landline, I think that was the price for a 1BR in the Sunset, at least that’s how I read it. And 1K isn’t bad for a town where the average family income is 6k-7K a month.

        The point is that you can find affordable parts of the city if you’re a little more flexible and don’t insist on being in a “hip” neighborhood.

        • landline

          The article clearly states, ” Trulia’s Rental Price heatmap above captures the median price per bedroom (not entire apt) for some of the popular San Francisco neighborhoods.”

          • John

            But if the “price per bedroom” applies, then a 1BR would be 1K a month, as I stated. A 2BR would be 2K, and so on.

            A couple with no children may only need one bedroom, so the fact that a 5BR goes for 5K a month won’t bother them.

          • landline

            That’s not right. They take the apartment rent and divide by the number of bedrooms and give a composite average. Sorry, I’m not expressing that better.

            For instance, from a quick glance at Craigslist, 1 BR’s average about $1500; 2BR’s around $2500; 3 BR’s around $3500; 4BR’s around $4300 and so forth. Larger apartments average below $1000 per bedroom.

          • John

            It’s true that the “rent per bedroom” decreases as the number of bedrooms increases. That’s because there is less demand for larger places and excess demand for places that are cheaper.

            Here’s a search for 1BR flats to let in the sunset for less than $1,500 per month. There’s a few but not many:

            http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/apa/sfc?zoomToPosting=&catAbb=apa&query=&minAsk=&maxAsk=1500&bedrooms=1&housing_type=&nh=28&excats=

            So I guess 1K is more reasonable for the rent in a larger flat with sharers.

  4. nutrisystem

    Only obedient corporate drones can come here now – and even they must run continuously on the treadmill stay housed.

    Thanks ONLY to tenant protections, the city will not change instantly, but will slowly morph into a deluxe food court that (like a Hollywood set) looks like a city.

    San Francisco can no longer be a destination for the nation’s artisans, oddballs, intellectuals, actors, musicians, Latin-American refugees, and sexual dissidents. And that’s a huge loss.

    The loathsome surveillance and advertising industries are thriving, and unfortunately have chosen THIS city as their employee recruiting tool. They have plenty of drooling collaborators in City Hall and the real estate industry.

    • Thanks Tech Busses

      2013 was one of the driest years on record.

      Thanks, Tech Busses!

      • nutrisystem

        … the new, more corporate, San Francisco sense of humor!

        • Zaphod

          I guess being judgmental about what some people enjoy doing for their living is the new “in” thing for SF? What ever happened to the “to each his own” mentality I used to love about this city?

        • Thanks Tech Busses

          Only corporations are allowed to be sarcastic nowadays.

          Thanks, Tech Busses!

    • John

      Why confine yourself to San Francisco. Oakland is half the price and a few miles and minutes away. Daly City is smack up against the city limit and, again, rents are cheaper there.

      People can and do still move to SF if they are determined. But some flexibility is required as you’d expect in a city that is billed as the “world’s favorite city”.

      • C. Russo

        Your constant messages urging people to leave SF are beyond boring. The solution is clear: YOU gotta go!

        • John

          I wasn’t urging anyone to leave SF. Unlike, say, many on the left who want the tech workers to leave SF.

          I was merely pointing out to all those who endlessly whine here about the high rents in the Mission that there are much cheaper alternatives just a few miles away.

          The fact that they do not take advantage of that tells me that the sense of entitlement isn’t so much about some divine right to live in SF, but rather a divine right to live in a fashionable expensive part of SF regardless of means.

          Mom, I want a pony.

        • Tech Bus Express

          I’m on my way!!!

    • poor.ass.millionaire

      You are wrong on your point. Lookit this article from da chron: innovate young white guys finding cheap city digs! It can happen, even in precious ess eff, if you really want it :)

      http://www.sfgate.com/realestate/article/Startup-dreams-meet-pop-up-rentals-4226675.php#photo-3986275

  5. community

    > San Francisco can no longer be a destination for the nation’s artisans, oddballs, intellectuals, actors, musicians, Latin-American refugees, and sexual dissidents. And that’s a huge loss.

    why do people always assume that it is either artists OR tech/professionals??

    A vast number of the artists I know are also techies. A large amount of the fun late night art and culture of this city was created by techies over the last 20 years. I dont see these as opposite forces. In fact, being a good developer is inherently one of the most creative jobs around these days — thus you see that many many techies have a wide range of creative hobbies and inspirations.

    Another example — burning man — a quintessential SF born gathering of freaks, creatives, and artists — that event is **full** of tech folks creating art for the pure passion of self-expression, and they also have the resources to afford to build that art.

    I’m pleased to see the city filling up with creative and artistic techies. I think it speaks well for the future of this city as it will continue to be a home for creative and unusual thinkers. If this is not obvious to you, then you clearly know very little about the tech industry and the folks in it. Perhaps you should branch out and make some new friends and see what you find.

    • You are missing the point. You are saying that wealthy people with disposable income can do art. Of course they can. But do they have the same skills and drive and inspiration and viewpoints? No they don’t. I challenge you to learn some history and see how art works. Of course wealthy people can commission and support real artists, but that is not happening to a great extent (and not helping artists to stay here).

      What has truly been destroyed in SF is the class of young people who are just starting out. These are the people with idealistic views, few cares in the world, and an open mind. Imagine a student, going to SF state, UCSF, USF etc etc trying to make a start in this city. Pretty much impossible. Yes, they may have to do some coding on the side to make ends meet.

      Burning man has become mostly a playground for the wealthy a while back, ticket prices alone tell you the story there (and that is just a fraction of total cost). It is a place for radical expression if you can afford it, which kind of defeats the purpose.

      Today the equivalent of those ‘starting’ young people now makes around 100K, works long hours, is addicted to tech, and in general tuned to a convenient, entitled life style. Instead of changing the world they are often focused on making the next big app based on ads, IPOs, buyouts etc. corporate culture at its finest.

      If you look around closely, you will see strong currents of a double society. There are the taquerias and dive bars, and then there are the 15$ sandwich and cocktail places. The people in there may be of similar age, but they tend not to mix. This country has always had class stratification, but we have entered a new era here where most professions needed by society (and often requiring decades of education and training) do not provide a sustainable living in SF. Tragic for the city really.

      And then there is the whole diversity argument. The reason most of the artists you know are techies is by simple selection – they are the ones able to still live here. Perhaps if you were more in tune, or living here for longer, you would know that there has been a steady stream of artists leaving SF to Oakland and beyond. Focusing on techies who do art in their spare time (or as part of their ‘retirement’) is rather insensitive.

      • John

        I’m not buying your claim that the Mission is no longer diverse. Walk down mission Street or 24th street and the majority of people do not look rich at all, nor particularly white, male, straight or whatever else you’re claiming is the opposite of diversity.

        Even the most gentrified part of SF is still nothing like Walnut Creek, and I have enough confidence in the people of the Mission to embrace change and progress.

        True diversity includes a place for affluent white male tech workers. and it’s an indicator of your level of tolerance and respect for diversity that you can live next door to a multi-millionaire without feeling envious and resentful about his success.

        • two beers

          To be truly diverse, we need condescending, arrogant, rightwing Ayn Rand elitist kooks.

          Thanks for making the Mission diverse, John!

          • John

            Hating on classes of people based on your own personal set of preferences in not in the spirit of diversity, TB.

            If I don’t hate rabid socialists, why would you hate those of a more conservative nature?

          • landline

            While you may not hate socialists (though I suspect you do), you describe them as diseased, even though rabies has been almost entirely eradicated in the Bay Area for decades.

          • John

            If I used the word “rabid” then I should point out that it is ambiguous and I meant it in the sense of “fanatical” and “extreme” rather than the sense of suffering from rabies.:

          • two beers

            John, I’ve never advocated for “diversity;” that’s just some tired old liberal hippie lingo.

            And I don’t hate conservatives. Some of the nicest people I’ve known are conservatives. And there are more than a few of the type you would call pinkos that I don’t like. There isn’t always a one-to-one correspondence between a person’s politics and a person’s character. The world isn’t black and white.

            Even though I find your politics reactionary, over-simplistic, and reductive, I don’t hate you, even if you are a little arrogant and pompous. There are plenty of arrogant and pompous lefties, so it’s not like you guys have a monopoly!

          • John

            TB, I’m glad you do not play the diversity card. I was worried when I read your paragraph starting:

            “And then there is the whole diversity argument.”

            But you have clarified your view, thank you.

          • two beers

            I only play two cards:

            1. Acknowledging the top-unilateral class war waged by the 1% against the rest of society, and which the 1% is winning overwhelmingly because most of the 99% isn’t even aware that war is being waged against them;

            2. Acknowledging the rampant and destructive inequality caused by the very policies that enrich the 1% — which policies, if allowed to continue, will end up destroying the fabric of society propping up that 1% (i.e.,the 1%, by insisting on collecting virtually of the gains in productivity — as well as the government subsidy intended to ameliorate the ruin caused thereby — will bring its own ruin upon itself)..

            I say this as a small business owner/entrepreneur.

          • John

            2beers, I don’t begrudge anyone the “one percent” meme, since it was the only thing achieved by the ill-fated Occupy and it’s 15 minutes of fame.

            But if there is a class war being waged, it is by a small faction on the left who attack people for no reason other than that they have been successful.

            You see that not just in cheap publicity stunts like trying to stop people getting to work by bus. But also with the emphasis on inequality when that is caused not so much by Americans being poor by global standards (they are not) but simply because we have some people who are very rich, and that irks some other people who are not.

            I do not believe that envy is a rational foundation of any ideology that appeals to Americans. And looking at those we elect to DC as representative of what most voters think, I do not believe that such envy plays well with the majority of hard-working Americans.

            Worrying that others have more than you is unhealthy.

          • two beers

            John, the 1% has collected 93% of the economic gains since the crash. That leaves 7% to be split by everyone else. That is why 1. real incomes are falling for most Americans for the first time since the Great Depression, and 2. the 1% is making vastly more money than it ever has before,.

            Such inequality is inherently oppositional to the democracy you espouse, because, while the 1% is awash in QE2 taxpayer subsidies to throw at its own political causes, much of the 99% has barely enough to pay for food and your rent, again for the first time since the GD — let alone engage meaningfully in the top-down unilateral class war waged against them by voting for one of two 1% establishment candidates, neither of whom give a rat’s ass .for the 99%.

            That inequality is now acknowledged on Bloomberg, for example, shows that Occupy succeeded in bringing awareness of the issue to the fore.

            What you fail to understand is that it’s not envy — it’s resentment that while the 1% is making Louis XIV bank, it won’t even leave enough for the people who actually to do the work to live on.

            What amazes me is that most of the 1% doesn’t even realize that their continued partying-like-it’s-1999 is going to be their own downfall.

            Let the 99% eat cake, right, John?

          • John

            “Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.”

            The trouble starts when you propose policies that will address this alleged “inequality”. You can really only do that by punishing success and rewarding failure.

            That in turn involves a moral hazard that leads either to the successful folks decamping to Switzerland or Singapore, or they simply don’t try as hard. Either way, the other 99% lose.

            You can sing the inequality song all day long, with charts and stats, bemoaning the manifest unfairness of it all. But any cure may end up being worse than the illness.

            If I felt as you did, I’d probably move to a jurisdiction where high taxes forcibly redistribute wealth. But would you really be happier there?

          • two beers

            I’m surprised you didn’t finish John Galt’s speech, because this is right out of it.

            The rich threaten to go Galt whenever anyone observes that they accumulate a disproportionate amount of the wealth created (created by others, that is).

            So, if observing that the 1% have taken 3% of the gains is sour grapes, than what if they take 94%? 95%? 100%?\

            If the rich take 100% of the gains solely because they have the power to do so, than what are the 99% who get 0% of the gains supposed to do? Be soothed by your trite homilies and exhortations to “work harder”?

            If the rich take all the wealth (again because they have the power to), what is everyone else supposed to do?

            When someone has one the genetic lottery, and is a multi-billionaire by virtue of birth, and not by work or effort, something is wrong. When someone works hard for years and dies on his knees on the streets, something is wrong.

            You are sublimely ignorant of the suffering around you (suffering caused by the very policies that have benefited you), and boy, will you be surprised when that suffering wreaks havoc on your own life.

            Anyways, enough for now. Unlike you, I have to work.

          • John

            The majority of gains in wealth accrue to those with the majority of wealth in the first place. That is true but trite and obvious. If we both make 10% on an investment but I put a billion in and you put a thousand in, then clearly I will gain far more than you.

            You’re really arguing for a government-mandated massive redistribution of wealth. Not only is there zero chance of that happening in the US, but places like Sweden are now going in the opposite direction, having realized that their punitive marginal tax rates were counter-productive and disincentivizing.

            I don’t spend time worrying that some others are far more wealthy than I am. That doesn’t seem like a healthy or productive use of my time.

            In the end, it seems that all you have got is a variation on the old line “come the revolution, the workers will take you out into the street and shoot you”. Well, given how fat and lazy the average American is, I think I’ll take my chances on there being no great socialist revolution here.

            What’s your backup plan if there isn’t?

          • two beers

            You’re right that Americans are too lazy and ignorant to act in their own self -interests, Except for the 1%, who act only in their self-interest, and have pushed the world to the brink of another economic crisis.

            Your attempt to try personalize and trivialize the universal economic crisis of our era with your strawman that we’re envious or worrying about other people being richer is condescending and asinine. When the rich have everything there is nothing left for the rest.

            It’s not the starving, homeless, poor workers, middle-class, or any other
            that the 1% have to worry about: what will destroy them is not a revolution but, with their continued extraction of all productivity, it will be their own strangulation of the economic system that let them live like aristocracy.

            They, you, the entitled elite 1%, will destroy their own golden goose with careless gluttony and an orgy of greed.

          • John

            Your premise there is that if I have more, then that necessarily entails that you have less, as if wealth were some kind of pizza to be shared.

            That analogy falls over because wealth can be created (and destroyed). So I can have a bigger slice of pizza without you having a smaller piece of pizza, if I generate that amount of extra wealth.

            Now there might still be a problem if you see my slice and are upset that it is much bigger than your slice. But if you confiscate my pizza slice then, the next time you are hungry and need a slice, you might find that I closed down the bakery and then your slice really would be smaller. Or non-existent.

            The “one percent” thing isn’t helpful at all. You are probably in the global top 1% if you make an average SF salary. While I’m fairly sure I’m not in the US top one percent as I don’t even pay the highest rates of federal and state income tax.

        • two beers

          If there are x number of dollars available, and Lloyd Blankfein and his country club elite banker pals have, say 95% of them, where do you propose everyone else gets their dollars?

          Money only enters into circulation via banks and the Federal government, Wall St and the 1% have managed to get control of most of the pipeline. As more and more people are cut out, you will see more bitcoins, bartering, etc. because there are fewer jobs, what remains pay less, and people are getting desperate.

          • John

            You get money the same way the rest of us do – by working, investing and taking risks.

            The idea that there is only a fixed amount of wealth and that, if someone else has wealth then there is none for you, is ridiculous.

            Wealth is not distributed or allocated. It is earned or created.

          • two beers

            Please explain how currency gets into the system. By magic?

          • two beers

            “Risks”? You mean the moral hazard created when Wall St knows that it can sell bogus paper and be bailed out 100% on the dollar by the taxpayer?

            “Work”? You mean the numerous wealthy elite who won the genetic lottery, inherited billions, and never worker a day in their life, but have used their ill-gotten wealth to fund foundations dedicated to stealing the gains in productivity earned, promised, and owed to the working masses?

            “Investing”? You mean the Ponzi scheme that is the stock market propped up by an implicit Federal Reserve guaranteem that was $85 (now $65 billion)?

            All the wealth you think the rich “created” was in fact stolen from the workers who created that wealth.

          • two beers

            “Risks”? You mean the moral hazard created when Wall St knows that it can sell bogus paper and be bailed out 100% on the dollar by the taxpayer?

            “Work”? You mean the numerous wealthy elite who won the genetic lottery, inherited billions, and never worker a day in their life, but have used their ill-gotten wealth to fund foundations dedicated to stealing the gains in productivity earned, promised, and owed to the working masses?

            “Investing”? You mean the Ponzi scheme that is the stock market propped up by an implicit Federal Reserve guarantee that was $85 (now $65) billion per month?

            The wealth you think the rich “created” was actually stolen from the workers who created that wealth.

          • John

            I do not equate currency with wealth so the point is moot. My objection is to you regarding the total amount of wealth in the world as somehow magically being constant, such that if I have more you necessarily have less.

            In fact, in many cases, if I have more that means you have more as well because I employ you or provide you with value, products, services or investment returns.

          • John

            You just about have a point when it comes to inherited wealth. I’m not super supportive of trust fund babies and the like, although I also abhor the Estate Tax and so am not sure how to reconcile that.

            But my point was more to do with people who build wealth like Gates, Buffett, Ellison, Jobs etc. If they had all built their companies in Switzerland, how would you have been much richer?

          • two beers

            If you are in possession of 100% of the legal currency, I either have to use an alternate currency, barter, or print counterfeit.

            So, you don’t equate currency with wealth. That”s nice, good for you. Will you accept mjy next rent check in bitcoin, barter, or counterfeit paper? If not, why not?

            The wealthy are wealthy not because they “work harder,” but because they have access to and control of the currency, and ownership of essential assets for which access to must be paid in legal currency, i.e. rent.
            .

    • nutrisystem

      Community, to your question “why do people always assume that it is either artists OR tech/professionals??” …

      I fully accept that there are many brilliant, creative people working in tech professions. And that some of them (amazingly, after a long day of coding) ARE contributing to culture – perhaps making electronic music, wearable LED art, contributing to a Burning Man project, etc.

      The problem is simply that the housing cost burn-rate is so high that they MUST toil for their corporate overlords just to stay afloat, and this leaves little time to practice art, music, or whatever. And because of this time-slavery, their “extracurricular craftsmanship” cannot grow beyond the novice level.

      All creation requires time, LOTS of time, and some space. If most of one’s time is required just to generate rent-dollars, creation can’t go far.

      High overhead costs are the deadly enemy of innovation in the arts, sciences, technology, and everything else.

  6. Frank

    SFist has a comprehensive explanation for the runaway rent increases:

    http://sfist.com/2014/01/30/sf_rent_skyrocets_3-times_higher_th.php

    • nutrisystem

      … more techie-hipster attempts at ironic comedy.

      This seems to be the default behavior of politically-neutered young Americans, when they should be doing some critical thinking and forming conclusions.

      • John

        nutrisystem, most Americans are not obsessed with politics and spend all day howling anguish at this outrage or that injustice. They’re just ordinary people trying to make it and hoping to have a few laughs along the way.

        Do you really want the majority to be political animals? Personally i worry a lot more about the earnest activists and extremists ideologs than I worry about ordinary people going about their routines for work and family.

        Most people do not want to be radicals and advocates. They just want to be left alone and not told what to think and do by others.

        • Most people are content with minimum wage and no security for themselves and loved ones?

          The truth is Americans spend long hours at work (or looking for work) and are presented with a pseudo democracy that can’t represent their interests or desires for change. This generally leads to despair and resignation. SF voter turnout and youth voting rates are good examples. remember the SF street parties when Barack ‘change’ Obama won the election? That only happened the first time …

          • John

            The U.S. could not have the system of government that it has without the support of the people. We have the government we deserve.

            It was always naive to think that Obama was going to change the nation except at the margins. All politicians become more moderate and centrist once they achieve real power, and Obama was never going to be an exception to that. It quite simply wasn’t an option.

            I voted for Obama but not because I wanted him to invoke massive changes. More because I thought he would be a more competent administrator.

            You may feel betrayed that Obama didn’t give us socialism, but many of us would have felt betrayed if he had.

  7. community

    back on topic then — how about we get some more housing built.

    it is the only solution that will help slow/reverse the current increase in rents and home prices.

    I’m glad to see that the mayor is prioritizing that.

    the realistic constraint is that it will continue to be tough for a while — it will take a few years of ongoing housing construction at, or above, the current pace before we start to see rates fall.

    so that is the rub — the *real* solutions are in play, but they take a while. In the meantime, there is real pain occurring, and the risk that foolish solutions will be proposed by those who don’t understand the basics of economics.

    build more housing now!

    • nutrisystem

      Tens of thousands of new housing units MIGHT help, but it’s just as likely that it will not. Supply can create additional demand, and then some.

      Los Angeles has tried to tame its traffic jams by building more freeways since the 60′s. But after half a century of “doing the logical thing”, the traffic is as bad as ever.

      We are thinking too small – there is a whole continent to work with. Maybe SF is at its optimal size and a “New SF” needs to be built.

      • John

        The mistake surely is looking at SF in isolation. 80% of people who live in the Bay Area do not live in San Francisco. The nicest parts of the other eight counties are as expensive as SF (Mill Valley, Orinda, Los Altos) but there are vast swathes of the Bay Area where you find plentiful cheaper homes, and still be in SF for work or play if you want.

        New Yorkers who find Manhattan too expensive seem happy to live in Brooklyn, Queens or New Jersey. Why does everyone think they should be able to live in the Manhattan of the Bay Area?

      • community

        nutrisystem — if SF is at its optimal size, and we add no new housing, than it will just keep getting more expensive as people compete to live here, and those with more $$ drive the price up. if you want SF to stay affordable, we need to build more housing. that will change SF — it will get denser and more crowded — and maybe not as nice to live in (which might also help push prices down).

        comparing to LA freeways is an apples to oranges red herring. completely different dynamics. freeways are free — three is no pricing mechanism to balance supply and demand. If they were real-time demand based toll roads, we might have a comparison to make.

        If housing were free in SF — what some folks call “housing as a right” — then we would have a similar problem as LA freeways — EVERYONE would want one, and they would be perpetually oversubscribed and there would be no way to build enough, ever.

        instead we pay for housing. since there is a high demand and low supply, it is expensive.

        it is not really that hard to understand.

        • John

          In a way, SF does have that “freeways are free” problem. Because the housing costs of so many people are subsidized, the housing market in SF is highly inefficient.

          Price is what ensures there is always a balance between supply and demand. But when the price is controlled, then that equation goes out of the window and demand tends to infinity as everyone feels entitled to a cheap rent.

          Prices are not right or wrong, fair or unfair. They just are what they are.

      • community

        oh, and if you want a “new SF” — consider the rest of the bay area. Oakland, and our other urban core areas *do* fill that role.

        • nutrisystem

          The point of the LA freeway comparison is that the “logical” assumption that increased supply always solves a shortage is false.

          This is so because the unintended consequence of the increased supply might just be an increased demand (which outstrips your new supply).

          Perhaps a better example is Manhattan, which in the 19th century had a density similar to SF. There, the supply was increased on a gigantic scale, and the results are in….. NO DROP IN HOUSING COSTS. On the contrary, they have the highest real estate prices in the nation.

          • John

            You totally miss the point, nutrisystem. The goal is not to make homes in SF cheap because that can never happen. The point is to create enough homes so that the workers who the city needs can live here.

            Trying to make SF cheap is like trying to make Aspen cheap. It cannot happen.

        • nutrisystem

          It takes big capital to create a “New SF” in the East Bay or in the woods somewhere, and the surveillance / advertising companies have plenty of it.

          So they COULD solve problems and create something great, instead of destroying an existing urban ecosystem by busing workers into a saturated market. Why they are into “moonshots” but uninterested in urbanism, the most noble of human endeavors, is a mystery to me.

          • John

            Unless of course you believe that adding diversity to our neighborhood actually improves it.

            I for one actually welcome new residents to our neighborhood and do not require that they first meet some politically correct criteria for living here, no doubt to be ratified by an un-elected committee of self-serving bureaucrats.

          • nutrisystem

            John, you’re a bullshitter, and it’s getting tiresome.

            $3000 1br apartments don’t “add diversity”, and you know it. They DESTROY diversity… eventually resulting in a city where everyone is an obedient surveillance corporation drone.

            It’s clear to me what you are really welcoming: more profits in your parasitic real estate ventures.

  8. Tech Bus Express

    ALL ABOARD!!!

  9. Thanks Tech Bus Express!

    This data is fucked: Chinatown’s average home price is $6.9M??? http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/San_Francisco-California/

    Get it right! :(((((

    THANKS GOOGLE BUSES!

  10. poor.ass.millionaire

    I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: blame skyrocketing rents on the rent control industrial complex. Too many people (including many who don’t need the subsidy) hoard their unit because it’s under current market rent. Take the freebie away and there’ll be less incentive to hoard units.

  11. poor.ass.millionaire

    Join me people!

    What do we want?
    END THE RENT CONTROL INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!!

    When do we want it?
    NOW!!

    Hey, hey, ho, ho!
    Rent control has got to go!

    Hey, hey, ho, ho!
    Rent control has got to go!

    Hey, hey, ho, ho!
    Rent control has got to go!

  12. poor.ass.millionaire

    Tech buses
    So they say
    Is the root of all evil today

    But if you ask for a ride
    It’s no sur-prise
    That they’re giving none away…away…away…away

    Ha ha ha ha ha….

    • nutrisystem

      Do you find that, when it comes to the ladies, being a millionaire makes up for having a poor ass and being a douchbag?

      • poor.ass.millionaire

        What, you don’t like my adaptation of Pink Floyd’s song Money for tech buses? I thought it was real clever :)

        Came up with it while taking a super early morning dump too! (Note orig post time)*

        * now that, my friend, impresses the ladies!

Comments are closed.