Which is to say SF's problems are definitely a result of SF policies! For housing specifically, only SF is responsible for making construction in SF near impossible.

The problems of the nation and state are of course also present there, but that doesn't change that SF is unique.

I'm not saying SF is blameless, but what works in Japan or Norway isn't guaranteed to work in SF.

You say the trains run on time in Japan, and people don't respond by researching transit infrastructure in Japan to figure out why that is. They respond by throwing their hands in the air and staying it's impossible, unfundable, politically untenable, whatever fluff reason that's indicative of an unwillingness to think analytically about the problem.

The underlying cause is that there is no thought or scholarship in local government, just electoral risk assessment.

1. Non US rich countries have much less mass shootings.

2. Non SF major US cities have much less street poop.

This shows that neither problem is unavoidable.

Sincere question: Why does San Francisco seem to be the only one with those news stories (not NYC, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc.)?

Some cities have been better at patching these issues than San Francisco has - e.g Austin, TX is forcibly removing homeless encampments from their streets. Seattle have revised zoning and is building new housing to offset housing shortages even though the local NIMBYs oppose muh gentrification.

San Francisco has the right combination of growth, politics and local sentiment that prevents these problems from being solved.

I know even here there's a huge heroin problem. Seen recently that the county sheriff and city police joined together kicking out a bunch of homeless in the woods, and then everytime you go to the supermarket people with signs. Sad, but I know there's been cases of people faking homeless to panhandle so don't know who's real or not. It seems like we have so many resources, and one of the richest nations yet we still have homelessness.

I know in some cities it's illegal to even sit on the sidewalk, what if someone is older or disabled needing to take a break and no benches to sit? Then some cities it's illegal to sleep in your car even if legally parked, but I know there's been challences over that. Some area even put spikes to prevent people from sitting down too. Just seems like instead of dealing with it, they rather want them to move along.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=poop+streets&ia=news

EDIT: RE downvotes, shame on me for not being familiar with SF politics, I guess. It is, after all, the center of the universe. (◔_◔)

The truth is well-paying (i.e. middle class) jobs are coalescing in a small number of cities which have failed to adapt to the growth. As a software engineer this means I can either make great money in one of the aforementioned cities or a fraction of it in an "off-brand" city. Lucky for me I can afford to pay out the nose for my apartment but this causes incredible pressure on the housing supply, especially for those less well-off.

Well, that one is pretty obvious. Landlords will charge the highest prices they can get away with.

The more interesting question is why landlords are supposedly entitled to all of the new wealth. After all they had no role in creating any of it.

At the root of the problem in your question is how does society determine who has a right to live where. Obviously, given the opportunity, most of the world would want to live with on the California coast or similar places.

Obviously, the most basic answer to the question I posed above is “might makes right”. But we have moved past a situation where fight someone to take their land, and instead have to buy it.

Yes, the current system is unfair for most people. Most people will never get a chance to live where they want, and most people are born without the chance in the first place. So why should society let those born to wealthy moms get the spoils?

There isn’t a good answer, other than a better alternative hasn’t been invented yet. But at least in the current scenario, a small percentage of people can move into the places they want, giving enough hope that people aren’t resorting to war. Or they are unable to.

You can assess land rent (there are methods to do this that are quite reliable) and tax away, say, 80% of it, thus leaving in place enough of a market in land that its ordinary function in facilitating exchanges is not impaired. It's quite easy in fact, the main problem is really getting there from here.

However, California has decided that "housing as investment" supersedes all else. It's not that there's no viable alternatives: this is by design.

I believe that certain cities have better ratios but I'm also inclined to think those places are just slightly earlier in the cycle.

I was responding to the claim that it's a state- or national-level problem. Perhaps you would argue that this meets some criteria for being a 'national-level' problem, but it's not obvious to me.

California state law is a big part of the problem: it gives individual cities way too much power to decide what gets built and what doesn't, severely restricting supply. For example, neighborhood associations can filibuster new development into nothingness, even for contradictory reasons like not having enough parking but also not being public-transport friendly enough. Additionally, California has wildly skewed tax law that disincentivizes people from moving or downsizing (look up Prop 13). Add in a lack of public transportation, zoning restrictions, and massive corporate subsidies and you've got a housing crisis brewing.

Also, Prop 13 inexplicably applies to commercial real estate, and inherited property.

Also the inherited property bit was a separate amendment. And there is no limit either.

And this isn't just a California thing.

"Home prices are rising at twice the wage of growth." https://www.curbed.com/2019/5/15/18617763/affordable-housing...

"Low-cost housing is disappearing from the market." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/housing-crisis-inequality-har...

You can find a lot of these articles around without much effort.

The root cause is prop 13 disincentivizes moving around keeping the supply illiquid, and encourages ninbyism preventing new construction, as you’re basically locked in whenever you currently live.

Used to be you could sell your house for more than you paid and have 2 years to roll it into buying a new house for the same or more money. Now the difference is taxable capital gains regardless of what your new living situation becomes.

IIRC this changed about 20 years ago.