The Bleaching of San Francisco: Extreme Gentrification and Suburbanized Poverty in the Bay Area

[Xithras]

56. The SF Chron ran an article recently that disassembled the protesters movement.

Basically, they demonstrated, using the city governments own numbers, that the gentrification and rent increases were occurring before tech moved in, and that the complete removal of the tech industry wouldn't stop it. At worst, the techies ares increasing its pace a little, but that's it.

The real problems are complex and multifaceted, but are the result of a complex interplay between the lack of development, poorly written rent control laws, and a growing population. San Francisco is growing fewer housing units than it is growing people, and unlike some cities, it can't expand outward. Competition for real estate is growing, which drives up housing costs. Rent control laws only cover a portion of the rental market, which creates huge economic divisions between those who live under it and those who don't. With a growing population, buying a rental and performing an Ellis eviction can often be the simplest way to find a home for many people. Because rent controlled buildings are less profitable than "free market" rentals, they can be bought cheaper than uncontrolled buildings and provide an easier "targets". The reduction of available housing stock through these buyouts also has the effect of increasing competition for the remaining "free market" rentals, driving up their rent even further, driving even more renters to buy, and taking even more rentals off the market. It''s easy to try and villify these buyers, but the reality is that most of them are San Franciscan's too, and they're just looking to stay in their home city. Does one San Franciscan have more of a "right" to stay in the city than another? Who gets to pick which San Franciscan is "San Franciscan enough" to live in a particular unit? There aren't enough residences for the population, so somebody has to go.

Most cities would respond to these conditions by building more housing units, but San Francisco has long been vehemently anti-developer which makes putting up new buildings a huge feat. Every development proposal is accompanied by years of hearings, neighborhood votes, and multiple pitches to the politically finicky supes. So the population continues to grow, and no "new" housing is being built for them. In just about any other city, this new population growth would be funneled into new housing towers, land use conversions, and other developments that add to the total number of residences, allowing the population to grow without displacement. In San Francisco there aren't nearly enough developments to accomplish this, so the new population has to displace the old population simply to find shelter. The result is "gentrification".

Tech certainly carries a small part of the blame, as a portion of those new residents are from workers moving to SF in order to service the tech industry, but even a total flight of tech wouldn't save San Francisco from gentrification. The douchie "brogrammers" make a convenient asshole scapegoat that few want to defend, but they're not the real problem. The real problem is a lack of leadership and planning in San Francisco that started long before most techies were even born.

But it's easier to blame Google and Twitter.