I would hate to see what kind of a dump one gets for $400.00 a month in SF.
I don’t see in the census data this guy is getting his figure of 44% “low income”. Can anyone help me find this?
The author is wrong about the shell game: After the con man finishes shuffling, the ball isn’t under ANY of the cups - he’s palmed it.
How’s that for an analogy to the SF housing market?
I can tell you how that figure is realistic. We are apartment owners, and have people paying 1/3 of what the market rent could be, due to rent control. We, as property owners are required to only raise rents at a rate the city allows, which last years was about 1/3 the rate of inflation. It doesn’t take too long for one to get affordable housing, simply by staying in your apartment, your rent increases, far less than inflation. We are forced to subsidize the “poor”. The politicians have figured out that there are far fewer landlords than renters, so they pander to renters. The upside is that through legal means, landlords are able to remove their rental stock from the market and convert them to condominiums, or the lates fad, “TICS” which are “tenancy in COmmon”. Unfortunately, rent control is going to force us to sell, convert, or remove our units from the rental market. In the end, San Franfreako will be left with little or any rental properties, due to the unintended consequences of rent control. It simply does not make economic sense to rent apartments to people in this city. Sure does wreak of a takings clause argument, however the Supreme court heard a case recently, where they denied the claim under the takings clause. I guess the city government is allowed to come into my wallet every month, and force me to subsidize those poor renters. It might be noted, that there are many surgeons on rent control, who pay 500 / month, in a city where their apartment could easily rent for 1500 - 2000 per month. Frankly, we are done with these idiots and are selling our building, probably to a condo conversion corporation.
High crime centers around a skyscraper city core provide two “benefits” to liberal politicians: a body of dependent, low income voters who suck up services conveniently provided by an army of social workers, and who always pull the “D” lever; and a perpetual source of scary crime incidents guaranteed the gentry from even dreaming of moving back close to the core of the city, even with low home prices.
Like the mafia guy who both owned the overloaded truck that ruined the roadway as well as the contract to fix the roadway, politicians reap the rewards of neglecting their cities to death.
Look at all it has done for Detroit, which will now never be rehabilitated. It’s a permanent shell of its former self.
But, but,....
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!"
i was surprised when i saw a “low income” hud apartment (looks like a house!) complex that opened recently.
2 bedrooms, one car enclosed garage, humongous living room, two enclosed patios, ... and so on.
and the guy was paying $500/month, living there by himself.
i wondered if many of the tax payers supporting him enjoyed a comparable home?