[#MakesYouThink] 'Liberal' Bastion San Francisco Cannot Solve Its Homelessness Problem

I don't really think this is debatable. There are homeless all over the place in San Francisco. One can argue that the reason is because San Francisco does not force them out of the city like Chicago does. either way, the homeless are an ever present part of San Francisco.

 

I was born in SF and raised in SSF. While you make good points, comparing SF to Manhattan ignores two significant differences... SF is built on a series of hills that further complicates building and also SF is built on a series of earthquake faults that further complicates building. And yes... SF does have more challenging building codes that address sunlight and wind environmentals.

 

Just taking a guess, but if i'm homeless (single or family), i would rather find a place that isn't too cold, too hot, have plenty of public amenities, free or cheap mass transportation, public libraries and parks, shelters, homeless food programs, allow me to stay, a public that give, etcs...

 

u obviously don't know SF, not knowing about earthquakes

 

As I said, every city is unique and has different challenges. There are a number of things that can be done to address the housing issue in San Francisco. Over the last few years there has been a push to do more. Still, San Francisco has had impediments purposely put up to limit construction.
I am not even saying they are wrong to do so. There are some people that do not want affordable housing, there are some that think building structures over 40 feet tall will change the character and appeal of the landscape.

Too often this turns into a left versus right debate and in this case it really isn't.

 

yet, you make all these convenient / false accusations about SF

 

Right...... my firm was only hired to do a multi million dollar study on San Francisco and to meet with political leaders in San Francisco to test the feasibility of a rail and apartments/condo's next to the rail. Earthquakes had absolutely nothing to do with building apartments/condo's.

I know more about it than I care to know. When there is a strong enough political will, there will be more affordable housing.

 

Not debating this as left and right. But its not simple to add "affordable housing" in a city with so little (if not no) available land and where the cost per square foot is so high. You also have traffic and other issues limits higher density growth (eg school density, police and fire protection).

And while I am sure there is NIMBY in every community (honestly, who wants high density housing built near where they live?), SF's geographic and geological challenges, coupled with very real challenges caused by environmentals like sunlight and wind patterns make this way more difficult than simple NIMBY resistance.

 

I didn't make any false accusations about San Francisco.

It is all a matter of documented fact.

"The down town plan" passed in the 1980's was passed in San Francisco to prevent the construction of large buildings to house people.
When that wasn't enough San Francisco passed stricter rules preventing the building of tall buildings without having the adjacent land also cleared.

San Francisco has systematically over the last 30-40 years passed laws to make it difficult to build affordable housing, from zoning acts to the Ellis Act.

All of this has prevented the growth of affordable housing in San Francisco.

 

i believe that, on a cost per sq ft basis,

SF has the most expensive real estate in the US, and
the 2nd most expensive in the world, behind Hong Kong

it's been this way for decades​

 

No, if San Francisco wanted more affordable housing it would be there. The zoning is amongst the toughest in the country. Limiting construction to 40 feet in height is extremely restrictive, for decades there were no new sky scrappers in San Francisco because people did not want it and laws were passed to prevent the construction (those laws the last few years in some parts of San Francisco have been loosened). Also the value of the land only increases the possibility of building taller buildings, because it justifies the cost of doing so.

 

Interesting... what area near rail was not evaluated for earthquake issues... the side south and east of the ball park? I would have guessed any construction would have to go through earthquake analysis and approvals.

 

i notice that u've intentionally omitted the BIG ELEPHANT in the room, scarcity of available land/space


out-of-towners like you need to know the two most oxy-moronic terms in Calif

• affordable housing in SF
  • when did SF ever have affordable housing ?
• public transportation in LA/OC
  • up to ~~7 years after the 1984 Olympics, other than a bus system, there was none, as almost everyone commute by car

 

Sigh.

Investors are willing to buy the land and redevelop it to build condo's and buildings. In San Francisco there have been a series of laws passed to prevent it from happening...... all the laws I have discussed earlier.....

Also affordable is relative. It would increase the amount of available housing in the San Francisco area, which in turn would decrease overall housing costs.

 

sigh,

the #1 reason for the housing crisis in SF has been the scarcity of available land/space.
it's been that way for generations.

to deny it is to be intellectually dishonest, in a manner like the science / Holocaust deniers​

 

Their housing problem is created by being one of the most beautiful places on Earth. Also im sure their housing is limited to terrain.

Funny thing is, it wasn't always like that but it's housing prices are market. I mean San Jose even Oakland etc are all expensive

 

And beauty and weather.

Any city like that is the same in terms of housing market.

The homeless actually do consider weather. I mean you have cities like Chicago but Austin has the drag. Houston also has a lot of homeless.

 

Again, if SF was treated like the other metro areas listed (and neighboring cities were also included) the total population would have been much greater and as a result the homeless % would have been lower. But you knew that...

 

If only we could #MakeSocialConservativeTriggeredSnowflakesThink. If only