Item — HN Reader

I was in a cab of someone that has lived in SF for 30+ years and he said that's how the TL got like that. People got displaced fromt their respective neighborhoods and all ended up there.

That area is prime real estate though. It's crazy to think that it's adjacent to down town.

1 comments

The issue is the SROs, which are legally protected as housing for the semi-homeless/insane.

I don't think there's an inherent right/need for people to live in a specific area of the city. I'd far prefer to see the land used for market-rate developments and then some of the profits taken as fees to fund programs to de-fuck these people somewhere else.

Most of the people in dire straits in SF came here from elsewhere. I don't think subsidizing is the city's responsibility, and doing so only encourages more to come.

I know this sounds harsh, but I can't see how incentivizing low-income people to move to an unaffordable city is feasible or prudent.

Even if you believe that, it's politically non-viable to propose demolishing SROs and kicking the existing semi-homeless out, many of whom are older, minority, genuinely mentally ill, drug addicts, etc., particularly in SF. So the libertarian or capitalist greater harm is keeping the TL as an undeveloped warzone, way beyond the cost of resettlement and assistance.

City demographics are changing. I think it will become viable soon. Most San Franciscans are tired of filth and squalor, and moving the dependent population onto land cheaper by a factor of 100 is compelling.

A lot of the issue is that people rich/smart enough to move to SF now (vs. those who pre-existed) value education. They're not going to send their kids to SF public schools, so they move to Hillsborough or Palo Alto for the schools. That leaves a population of 20-30s childless people, who are more likely to be liberal, and old hippies, the same.