Key jobs that don't pay enough to live in San Francisco (or some other major cities)

[Pedestrian]

David Curran
Updated 5:53 am, Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Many cheered San Francisco's gesture toward helping its poorly paid teachers (salary range $56,479-$81,778 for primary school teachers) with a $44 million pledge to develop a site for teacher housing. But what about all the other essential workers who can't afford to live in the city?

With $105,000 for a family of four now qualifying for "low income" housing in San Francisco, there are people in many key occupations that are currently forced to live, alongside the teachers, far from San Francisco city limits.

Take, for example, the Muni (bus) drivers who shuttle thousands of people to work and school every day: their starting salary is $44,525. Or how about our police officers? They start out at $83,000 per year. And firefighters? $74,880.

These salaries may not seem so low until you realize that, according to one source, the median salary needed to rent a 2-bedroom in the city is $216,129 . . . .

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Important-jobs-that-don-t-pay-enough-to-live-in-11147560.php

[mhays]

Yes, but that's based on the 30% metric for housing affordability. A lot of people -- no debt, no kids, no car -- pay way more than that.

I've posted the same point many times, because there are many threads about San Francisco housing prices.

[chris08876]

Lesson to be learned kids, is that selfish zoning policies and brutal building conditions for developers means higher rents and a tighter buyers market.

Let loose the developers who want to build 1000's of units, create policies that help reduce costs, and you'll see more affordable housing and more units being created. Also, repeal any sort of "prop" that limits office or residential space.

So long as the draconian conditions apply for developments, the costs will continue to impact the working people.

[10023]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Lesson to be learned kids, is that selfish zoning policies and brutal building conditions for developers means higher rents and a tighter buyers market.

Let loose the developers who want to build 1000's of units, create policies that help reduce costs, and you'll see more affordable housing and more units being created. Also, repeal any sort of "prop" that limits office or residential space.

So long as the draconian conditions apply for developments, the costs will continue to impact the working people.

But what if that's how people want it? There are trade offs between affordability and, well, how nice and area is.

I will go back to my usual example and say that the West Village will always be expensive, because the kind of new construction that would make it less expensive (or even attempt to make it less expensive) would ruin the West Village. There are lots of people (like me) who like living in an urban environment, but also like human-scaled streets and buildings (and on top of that, feel that basically every neighborhood developed after the 1920s sucks).

Again, the issue is transportation more than anything. Let people get from where housing is affordable to where the jobs are, don't try to make expensive neighborhoods cheaper. Of course a huge part of the problem is large scale suburban office development, which transportation networks cannot adequately accomodate and should be restricted.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Lesson to be learned kids, is that selfish zoning policies and brutal building conditions for developers means higher rents and a tighter buyers market.

Let loose the developers who want to build 1000's of units, create policies that help reduce costs, and you'll see more affordable housing and more units being created. Also, repeal any sort of "prop" that limits office or residential space.

So long as the draconian conditions apply for developments, the costs will continue to impact the working people.

This plus funding for the bottom end is exactly the answer (the funding can't add cost to development or it's counterproductive).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, but that's based on the 30% metric for housing affordability. A lot of people -- no debt, no kids, no car -- pay way more than that.

I've posted the same point many times, because there are many threads about San Francisco housing prices.

There are plenty of people--I'd say the majority who currently live in the city not in subsidized housing--who do so because of (a) rent control, (b) Prop. 13 and the fact they bought homes 20+ years ago, © they live in inherited property, (d) lots of roommates. My own excuse is (b). My best friends are mostly (a).

But just considering the case of someone newly moving to town, for whatever reason, and what they are faced with if they don't have a truly great tech job.

By the way, I hoped this would be not just about San Francisco although the article came from the SF paper so that's what it's about. But Manhattan, increasngly cities like Seattle and LA and others, and surely a few Canadian cities like Vancouver and Toronto have similar issues. Can individuals or couples who are not both well-paid professionals or tech workers live in these cities now?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

This plus funding for the bottom end is exactly the answer (the funding can't add cost to development or it's counterproductive).

How can you do "funding" that doesn't add cost? Certainly, San Francisco's current mandate for some percentage of "affordable" units in every market rate development adds cost. The market rate buyers/renters effectively subsidize the "affordable" units. Some marginal group of people who might have been market rate buyers at the low end of the price range without the affordable mandate are priced out and must become "affordable" buyers/renters on account of it.

[ssiguy]

In Vancouver there is NO job that affords one to live in the city on the city's low wages and astronomical cost of living except real estate developers & agents.

It's so bad that the province's premier university, UBC, has such a terrible time trying to recruit professors from anywhere else that UBC as an incentive actually provides subsidized rent on university grounds as an incentive to take the job. When you have to subsidize the rent of profs who are in the highest income brackets then you have a city that offers no affordability for any income group or occupation.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by 10023

But what if that's how people want it? There are trade offs between affordability and, well, how nice and area is.

I will go back to my usual example and say that the West Village will always be expensive, because the kind of new construction that would make it less expensive (or even attempt to make it less expensive) would ruin the West Village. There are lots of people (like me) who like living in an urban environment, but also like human-scaled streets and buildings (and on top of that, feel that basically every neighborhood developed after the 1920s sucks).

Again, the issue is transportation more than anything. Let people get from where housing is affordable to where the jobs are, don't try to make expensive neighborhoods cheaper. Of course a huge part of the problem is large scale suburban office development, which transportation networks cannot adequately accomodate and should be restricted.

Transportation will always be the limiting reagent to a cities growth, but the way I see it, a city becoming a gated community does more to hurt it from a cultural and functioning standpoint. There's a point where it will price out immigrants, middle class, and if prices rise, will strain people who make modest means of income.

If we use NY as an example, the city is a melting pot because it provided a place to live for the masses of all income groups. Granted economics and land prices changed the landscape, but I think prices should be controlled, and cities should still be arrival spots for new resident.

The idea of "But what if that's how people want it?" is the very selfish nature found in NIMByism and I feel is a hindrance to the evolution of a city. If our cities like NY or SF turn into a Monaco, you will loose a lot of what made them great to begin with. And thats access to a plethora of income groups, and the culture that comes with it.

Our cities can't be museums, and I'm not saying tear the whole thing down as preservation is important, but there needs to be a collective consensus on the direction of a city with respect to housing and even transportation. Some areas will have to change. More units will need to be added.

People will be selfish even when it comes to new transit options. NIMBYism is not the answer. Selfishness is not the answer. Why a city should remain a 20th century city is not in my thought process. We need to look ahead. SF, NY, Chicago, Miami... and it goes on, will change. Change is often hard to accept, but a city is not just for the current generation, but for the future kin who will inhabit it.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

How can you do "funding" that doesn't add cost? Certainly, San Francisco's current mandate for some percentage of "affordable" units in every market rate development adds cost. The market rate buyers/renters effectively subsidize the "affordable" units. Some marginal group of people who might have been market rate buyers at the low end of the price range without the affordable mandate are priced out and must become "affordable" buyers/renters on account of it.

Property tax applicable to all properties, vs. a specific burden on just new properties. Asking 800,000 people to pay $100/ea per year isn't a huge burden but would raise $80,000,000, or well over that since businesses are also paying.

By contrast, if every square foot of development pays $40 to support a 20% affordable requirement (guesstimating), that might be $40,000 per apartment including common areas and brief carrying costs. That's a heavy burden for every new market-rate household, and specifically discourages new supply. Because supply is low, rents rise in a similar fashion for every other non-protected renter in town.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Maybe SF can be the first city to have robot teachers.

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

In Vancouver there is NO job that affords one to live in the city on the city's low wages and astronomical cost of living except real estate developers & agents.

It's so bad that the province's premier university, UBC, has such a terrible time trying to recruit professors from anywhere else that UBC as an incentive actually provides subsidized rent on university grounds as an incentive to take the job. When you have to subsidize the rent of profs who are in the highest income brackets then you have a city that offers no affordability for any income group or occupation.

your province got mugged by its own government. i wish more people would talk about the investor program. that's the greatest snake oil sale in modern policy history after u.s ."urban renewal"....

[pdxtex]

Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007

Maybe SF can be the first city to have robot teachers.

quiet you!! were not there yet. *returns to bunker*...

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by mhays

Yes, but that's based on the 30% metric for housing affordability. A lot of people -- no debt, no kids, no car -- pay way more than that.

I've posted the same point many times, because there are many threads about San Francisco housing prices.

30% metric is very useful because it allows for the individual to marry and raise a family. Which is what many teachers, police officers and bus drivers, if not already are, at the very least aspire to.

[BrownTown]

Two points:

1. Using starting salaries for union jobs is pretty deceptive IMO. I don't know exactly what the rates are in San Fran, but around here a union job that starts at X tops out at 3X after 4-8 years of training. So you might be making $50,000 at the age of 20, but when you're 25 you're making $150,000 and that's still pretty dang good when you consider that a non-union job generally requires a college degree so in the same time span someone is getting a degree and going into debt you're getting your salary into the 6 figures.

2. I say this every time San Francisco is brought up and get made out to be a monster every time, but the answer is so simple; different zoning laws. Zone more of the land for multi-unit apartments and high rises. Like 90% of San Francisco is single family dwellings and it's on a peninsula where there's no room to expand so it's either build up or not at all. If the city refuses to build up then of course prices will go through the roof. But of course that's exactly what most people living there want because it means the houses they own are now worth a fortune and nobody "undesireable" can live in the city because they could never afford to. I just honestly don't get the fetish San Fran has for all these shitty row homes. Would it really be the end of the world to tear some of them down and build apartments and condo mid-rises instead? It's not like rents going down some is going to turn San Francisco into a ghetto, it's actually going to make it a better place even for the wealthy if you ask me.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by mhays

Property tax applicable to all properties, vs. a specific burden on just new properties. Asking 800,000 people to pay $100/ea per year isn't a huge burden but would raise $80,000,000, or well over that since businesses are also paying.

By contrast, if every square foot of development pays $40 to support a 20% affordable requirement (guesstimating), that might be $40,000 per apartment including common areas and brief carrying costs. That's a heavy burden for every new market-rate household, and specifically discourages new supply. Because supply is low, rents rise in a similar fashion for every other non-protected renter in town.

In San Francisco, 65% of people are renters. The rent control law allows only 50% of property tax increases to be passed on to tenants (as long as those increases have been passed by the voters). So you are suggesting a tax falling mainly on 35% of the population, many of whom are like myself and living on a fixed income or have owned their homes for years or generations for this purpose. But you are not asking anything of all the majority of renters, many newly arrived in the city and hghly paid, and not likely to make it their permanent home. Sorry. I don't see the equity in that.

A sales tax might spread the pain more widely but try to get it passed. And many wuld scream it's retrogressive (though I suppose you could exept certain basics like food).

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Two points:

1. Using starting salaries for union jobs is pretty deceptive IMO. I don't know exactly what the rates are in San Fran, but around here a union job that starts at X tops out at 3X after 4-8 years of training. So you might be making $50,000 at the age of 20, but when you're 25 you're making $150,000 and that's still pretty dang good when you consider that a non-union job generally requires a college degree so in the same time span someone is getting a degree and going into debt you're getting your salary into the 6 figures.

I think you are making a point counter to your own argument. What about all the thousands of low paid non-union jobs in the tourist industry, for example, which is a backbone of the SF economy? The article argues relatively well-paid union workers can't afford to live in the city but the groups it sites, especially first reponders iike police and fire, are notoriously well paid for their age and level of education in SF. The clerk at Macy's or your waiter in one of SF's excellent restaurants has it much worse.

2. I say this every time San Francisco is brought up and get made out to be a monster every time, but the answer is so simple; different zoning laws. Zone more of the land for multi-unit apartments and high rises. Like 90% of San Francisco is single family dwellings and it's on a peninsula where there's no room to expand so it's either build up or not at all. If the city refuses to build up then of course prices will go through the roof. But of course that's exactly what most people living there want because it means the houses they own are now worth a fortune and nobody "undesireable" can live in the city because they could never afford to. I just honestly don't get the fetish San Fran has for all these shitty row homes. Would it really be the end of the world to tear some of them down and build apartments and condo mid-rises instead? It's not like rents going down some is going to turn San Francisco into a ghetto, it's actually going to make it a better place even for the wealthy if you ask me.

So far there has been no example of a developer wishing to build a high rise who could not find a site to build it on. Some developments have not been allowed to be as tall or as large as originally proposed and some, that had good sites, have been blocked for other reasons. I have long pointed out that SF has several locations where new mid to highrise housing could be built without tearing down any single family dwellings: South of Market west of 4th St; along 3rd St, along Geary Blvd. These places alone could keep developers busy for decades.

You are preaching to the choir if you are arguing that development restrictions are too tight but really the problem is not that, it's the Byzantine approval process and the ability of one or a few "activist" citizens to block developments that stops most of them. We do need to do away with that and there's a lot of agreement in the city about that (but not, unfortunately, in its government because the same groups that oppose development are often very politically active).

[jd3189]

I also agree with BrownTown, Chris, and the clarification Pedestrian gave. Even in NYC (particularly Manhattan and even Brooklyn at this point)are building affordable housing to offset the price rise. What should be happening is more focus on transportation and getting our own to be as extensive and advanced as any other first world country out there, but at the meantime we have to build to make up for the demand.

To be honest, San Francisco is not in much danger architecturally if a certain amount of underused homes are destroyed to provide for more housing. Most of the buildings worth saving, like in NYC, should be already land-marked. And if the fear is that the resulting product will not be the same and not as aesthetically pleasing, just build something similar to the architectural style of that neighborhood. SF once had to rebuild and transform itself. It may very well have to do that again. All major cities have to do it. Techies and other sophisticated individuals may dislike that but many probably don't live there fulltime anyway if they're working at Silicon Valley.

I feel that eventually all American cities are going to have to increase density and figure out ways to improve transportation throughout their metro areas in a way that reduces the cost and increases the speed by which that happens while obeying regulations. It's the only way to go.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

30% metric is very useful because it allows for the individual to marry and raise a family. Which is what many teachers, police officers and bus drivers, if not already are, at the very least aspire to.

Yes, and it's irrelevant to many others. But it's treated like it applies to everybody, strangely.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

So far there has been no example of a developer wishing to build a high rise who could not find a site to build it on.

This is incorrect many times over. Countless developers would buy sites next week if they could find them for sub-astonishing prices. Even with the City kowtowing to nimbys. Cut the nimbys and it would go up from there.

Surely you don't think the only interested buyers are the ones you've heard of.