Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Facebook Government The Almighty Buck Twitter Technology

Finding the Downside In San Francisco's Tech Boom 373

snydeq writes "The NYTimes reports on the San Francisco's shifting socio-economic landscape thanks to a massive influx of tech workers and tax and regulation breaks to big-name startups. 'In a city often regarded as unfriendly to business, Mayor Edwin M. Lee, elected last year with the tech industry's strong backing, has aggressively courted start-ups. But this boom has also raised fears about the tech industry's growing political clout and its spillover economic effects. Apartment rents have soared to record highs as affordable housing advocates warn that a new wave of gentrification will price middle-class residents out of the city. At risk, many say, are the very qualities that have drawn generations of outsiders here, like the city's diversity and creativity. Families, black residents, artists and others will increasingly be forced across the bridge to Oakland, they warn.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Finding the Downside In San Francisco's Tech Boom

Comments Filter:
  • What's new? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Vinegar Joe ( 998110 ) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @12:56PM (#40221293)

    USA Today was reporting on this 5 years ago.....

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-26-urban-blacks_N.htm [usatoday.com]

  • Re:What's new? (Score:5, Informative)

    by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @01:25PM (#40221721) Homepage

    USA Today was reporting on this 5 years ago.....

    I remember being in San Francisco for a while back around 1999-2001 or so. At the time, a 400 square foot studio was going for something like $1600/month because the .com era had more or less caused the same thing.

    I remember people saying that if someone chose to move out of San Francisco to work in another state, they were essentially economic refugees ... because they'd never have the capital to move back to San Francisco and buy a place because the market would have left them behind.

    Hell, I used to know someone with a 2.5 hour commute because he had the choice of a 4 bedroom house with a yard, or a 2 bedroom tiny apartment. Since he had three kids, it wasn't really a choice.

    San Francisco has been really expensive for a long time. I'm not really surprised to hear it hasn't really changed much.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @01:26PM (#40221749)

    A huge Asian population isn't diversity. It's uniformy Asian.

  • by GodfatherofSoul ( 174979 ) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @04:32PM (#40224639)

    Yuppie Enticement is actually a strategy used by city planners to develop blighted communities. Heard a great story on this on NPR a year or so ago. Basically, you encourage all the artists, musicians, and gays to move into an area and make it hip and interesting. Then, the white bread yuppies who want to be hip and interesting after working their 8-5, 5-6 figure, suit-and-tie jobs move in. That drives up prices on rent, encourages development and businesses to move there to exploit all that yuppie entertainment budget capital. Ba-da-bing, you've got a nice clean area. The gays, artists, and musicians get priced out and go look for a new blighted community where they can afford to live. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    I believe the idea originated with Greenwich Village in NYC.

  • Re:O noes! (Score:5, Informative)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Tuesday June 05, 2012 @05:01PM (#40225081)

    "The only real way to fix this is to make everybody poor."

    It seems you have never heard of rent control.

    Get an education before you spew bullshit, you moron.

    There is rent control [sftu.org] in S.F. But there aren't rent caps, so people that got into apartments in S.F. before the prices went up are relatively safe (then again there are problems if the apartment owner wants to sell/privatize and you are kicked off and can't afford the current rent prices).

    As you said, there are no price caps, so what Rent Control does is make prices spiral to very high levels. The landlord factors in that he can only raise the rent a couple percent/year (varies per year based on the a consumer price index) for as long as the tenant lives there so rents are much higher than they otherwise would be. Worse for landlords is that it's exceptionally hard to evict a tenant regardless of cause, especially tenants that are disabled or elderly, so many landlords that might otherwise rent out an inlaw apartment chose not to to avoid the headaches if they get a bad tenant. Even when there is a legitimate reason to evict a tenant, it can take 6 months or longer to evict, after paying thousands in legal fees. If you own a house in SF, you cannot evict a disabled or elderly tenant to move into your own house.

    Even if you're not a protected tenant, the owner needs to buy you out ($5,000 per tenant, but you can negotiate higher if the landlord wants to avoid a protracted eviction process) to help cover your relocation.

    I spent 10 years in a rent controlled apartment, not because it was a great apartment but when you're paying under $1000/mo for something that would cost $2000/mo to rent today, it's hard to move. I now live in a non-rent controlled house outside of SF (but near transit) and pay much less for this house than if I tried to rent a similar place in SF.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (5) All right, who's the wiseguy who stuck this trigraph stuff in here?

Working...