San Francisco and what to do in it

yeah, even with the passing of prop 13 certain landlords hiked up rents for some reason! i could only imagine what it would be like if they took an actual financial hit

To the extent it equalizes the tax base between newer and older buildings, I guess it would lower the rent on newer buildings and raise it on older ones, assuming the total amount raised from property taxes is held constant. If the amount raised from property taxes is increased, then presumably other forms of income such as sales taxes could be decreased.

landlords are already gouging market rate renters as much as they can? Gouging is a leading word but, yes, of course, landlords are maximising their profits as much as the market allows.

The counter-argument might be made by the building trades and their overlords but the public good of having a saner tax base and investing it in education is insuperable.

When you have a general consensus across party (and ind) lines, why tf would you not do this? Oligarchy?

sales taxes could be decreased.

So not going to happen

kinda wanna poll these but there's too many
http://judgmentalmaps.com/post/83644463249/sanfrancisco

just glad we finally got our own judgmental map

so many hobo blowjobs

As usual my neighborhood is completely overlooked...

So I'm having a gettin'-hitched party this fall, and want to get a taco truck. Any faves? I like Tonayense...

Tonayense def top choice taco truck at my house

stay classy San Francisco!
http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/files/2014/05/reality-in-sf-600x450.jpg

so so many hobo hobo blowjobs!

lol @ jesuit jailbait

so my daughter's kindergarten teacher (who we have not had the best relationship with tbf) just told us she is leaving the school/moving out of town at the end of this year, because she can't afford to live here anymore. she had been forced to move/had her rent raised three times in the past year.

>:(

On a lighter note, my buddy's movie doc is showing in the San Francisco area as part of a film festival:

Catch "Led Zeppelin Played Here" at Oakland School for the Arts on June 8th at 5pm or at Roxy Theater in SF on June 14th at 9pm.

Directed by Jeff Krulik (Heavy Metal Parking Lot), this documentary takes a look at the epic and possibly mythical 1969 performance Led Zeppelin gave in the gym of the Wheaton, MD Youth Center in front of 50 confused teenagers. Krulik tracks down just about everyone who might have been there that Monday night, which also happened to be the evening of Richard Nixon's Presidential Inauguration.

loove heavy metal parking lot

not exactly San Francisco, but I'll be in Sonoma this weekend for my cousin's wedding, may have a few free hours for some kind of activity (lunch or something like that), would love any recommendations

Fremont Diner! I've always gone for breakfast but their food is so good I'll lay money that their lunch food is great too. But if you're brunchy, their fried chicken & waffles is ridic good.

http://www.thefremontdiner.com/

Curmudgeon I can't find the event listed on Oakland School for the Arts' website- do you have a source for the viewing - I'd like to see the film

http://sfindie.com/festivals/sf-docfest/

And more specifically:

http://prod3.agileticketing.net/websales/pages/info.aspx?evtinfo=79388~50c99741-ceec-4bfa-94b4-b7d919a3c410&epguid=1b0dd1dc-4f43-40db-87bc-79af44283b8b&

Also, Amoeba is sponsoring it

http://www.amoeba.com/blog/2014/05/people-s-republic-of-northern-california/sf-docfest-screens-led-zeppelin-played-here.html

Thanks!

eat at my pre-school co-op buddy's restaurant:
http://www.sfgate.com/restaurants/article/Old-favorite-Firefly-creates-a-new-diverse-menu-5511421.php?cmpid=hp-hc-food

Ooh , firefly used to be my favourite neighbourhood restaurant!

oh Rat Girl

surely there's some Cat Lady we can pit against her

what do people make of this bomber story

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/FBI-Chamberlain-had-device-designed-to-maim-or-5525164.php

personally inclined to never trust the FBI about anything but the narrative this spins of a potentially really bad crisis being prevented is p compelling

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-voters-OK-Prop-B-on-waterfront-development-5526983.php#photo-6398897

dumb city filled w/ dumb people

hahahahahah - I wondered whether iatee had thoughts on the waterfront height restriction measure

iatee otm

This is p low on city's problems w development

Imo

it's a Save The Millionaires' Views proposition in populist drag that makes it even harder to add to our painfully low housing stock.

imo you can be anti-eviction or anti-growth, but not both.

yeah this wasn't gonna make or break anything it just shows how backwards and hopeless the city is

who needs a tea party in san francisco, you have the sierra club

welcome back!

I never left I just uninstalled zing from my phone

highly recommended

Lets not pretend there was ever gonna be affordable housing built on the fucking waterfront.

you don't need to build "affordable housing" to keep housing affordable. more supply = lower prices overall. more luxury condos on the waterfront = less single family homes gutted and resold for $2M in the Excelsior.

Is that true with the housing demand in San Francisco? Seems more like "more luxury condos on the waterfront, single family homes available to be gutted and resold to different Twitter employees"

based on historical norms demand is actually low. it's just high relative to even lower relative supply. inventory is running at about 30% of normal levels, so even if demand is, oh, let's say 50% of normal it's going to look like the end of days. which it does.

but every new unit helps. it's the NIMBY shit that makes it zero-sum.

I've come around to this way of thinking. Of course, a bit more gentrifying out here in the Excelsior couldn't hurt. We're all set on 99 cent stores.

definitely true that more housing is better than no housing, but demand is high enough relative to supply in sf that more luxury condos on the waterfront does not nec mean less house-flipping elsewhere in the city. the more supply = lower prices thing is mostly true for regions, but if you want more affordable units in the city proper you'll need them to be subsidized in some way

I have aesthetic preferences about how developments should work/look, but I am totally cool with building more housing in the city anywhere. It's stupid not to. There's a proposal to knock down the old Cellspace building down the street from me to build some new housing and my main issues with it are that the landlord/developer totally went about it in a dishonest/shitty way, not with the housing itself.

developers don't want to build affordable housing here at all (why would they? demand for higher priced stuff is off the charts) which is why they are forced to sell a percentage of anything they actually build at below-market-rates. Which is how I got my home fwiw.

more supply = lower prices eventually becomes the case even in san francisco if the numbers are large enough

idk, seems very plausible to me that sf will continue to become even more like manhattan than it already is. different places / regulatory atmospheres i know, but existing growth restrictions plus a 7x7 boundary in sf could easily prevent supply from ever being high enough to get to those large #s within that geography.

extremely plausible sure, almost certain that homeowners won't be fighting for policies that ultimately lower the value of their homes, esp when you can do it in the name of environmentalism

but a couple thousand units of 'affordable housing' for lottery winners also does basically nothing in the big picture