[BTinSF]

Originally Posted by tyler82

Ahem, I did NOT say that house prices are low in these areas, I am saying they are low INCOME. You actually think that the people living in these areas are making $100k + to be able to afford their homes? They are given subsidies, rent checks, and other freebies so that they can stay in these areas (which I feel doesn't help their situations).

Yeah, in many cases I do. Not counting "public housing" residents, the people who have lived there for decades may be fairly low income, but the people who have bought property anywhere in San Francisco in recent decades have got to be in pretty solid shape by national norms, anyway. I just read that a Muni driver makes about $27/hr. That works out to $56,000 a year. So a pair of Muni drivers who were married would make well in excess of $100K. These are the kinds of people buying in San Francisco's least expensive areas: 2 income couples where each partner has a solid middle class job and together they usually do earn over $100K. Don't forget that SF is a city of renters. Most people who live here--the single people working in retail or other service jobs--can't afford to buy anywhere in the city and many of them are spending over half their income on rent--in many cases that's true even if they have a roomate.

And yes, Alamo square is a bad area if you consider a bad area one that has a lot more crime than other parts of the city. You can't just conclude that the entire city of San Francisco is immune from social problems and "bad areas" because houses here cost $800,000+ a pop. Most other parts of the country where houses cost $200,000 and $300,000 are a lot more safe than here, so does that make SF neighbhoods inherently better areas because the cost of living is higher?

NEWayz back on topic... are there any guestimates as to what these units (affordable ones) will cost? Are there going to be rentables only or are they all going to be for sale?

The eventual effect of the prices of these houses is going to be to drive the "low income" folks completely out of the city, whether they rent or own, because rents ultimately depend on the value of property. It has taken decades and it's an ongoing process, but it's happening even in the poorest neighborhoods (which by national income standards are no longer poor). The creation of "affordable" housing, wherever they put it, is an effort to turn back the tide and all it can really do is provide a place of refuge for a few thousand lucky people.

Actually, Trinity Plaza represents the REAL solution to the problem. Build lots and lots of market rate rental units as cheaply as possible. If it were possible to saturate the market, rents would come down as they temporarily did in 2001 when the supply/demand situation shifted as so many "dot-com" people left town. If a building like Trinity Plaza, with 1900 units, commonly had 10% or more of them vacant, my guess is they'd lower the rent to try to fill them. And that would be happening all over town--it's called "competition" but it can't happen when the vacancy rate is always critically low.

My understanding is that Trinity Plaza will be entirely rental and, as I said, although new construction is normally exempt from rent control, those units occupied by existing Trinity tenants will "grandfathered" into the rent control system:

The agreement, which Daly helped broker, will require landlord Angelo Sangiacomo to put 360 of the 1,700 rental apartments he intends to build at Market and Eighth streets under the city's rent control regulations.
Rent control in San Francisco normally doesn't cover buildings constructed after 1979 but Sangiacomo agreed to the provision to gain political support for his project at City Hall.

The deal also provides for about 160 apartments to be offered at rates affordable to anyone earning just 60 percent of median income. The development includes a total of five buildings rising 12 to 24 stories to be constructed in phases on about 4 1/2 acres of prime downtown real estate.
Residents currently living at Trinity Plaza could end up with larger apartments on higher floors once the new buildings are erected, according to the terms of the deal, with moving expenses to be paid by Sangiacomo.

60% of the median income is $38,300 for a single person, $43,750 for 2 people, $49,250 for 3, $54,700 for 4, $59,100 for 5 and so on ( http://www.sfgov.org/site/moh_page.asp?id=38605 ). Furthermore, "Federal affordability guidelines consider housing to be "affordable" if households spend no more than 30% of their gross monthly income on all housing costs, including utilities."

Doing the math, I figure a unit suitable for a single person (?studio, ?one bedroom) would have to rent for $957/month including utilities. The calculation is: $38,300/12 x .3 = monthly "affordable" rent. You can do it yourself for larger families.