> Before covid SF actively did it's best to antagonize the companies who's tax revenue it relied on.

I think that's a misleading characterization. The city notoriously gave tax breaks to large tech companies, accompanied by some weak rhetoric about supporting local communities, but with weak or no oversight confirming any real local benefits.

I also think it's important to distinguish between _office space_ and _retail space_. Retail and restaurant spaces will also struggle to get filled if neighborhood office workers are getting catered in-office lunch, getting delivery from ghost kitchens, and buying goods from amazon etc. I.e. the way we live and work increasingly supports the Zombieland street-level experience.

> The city notoriously gave tax breaks to large tech companies

The city notoriously set up large and complex taxes on tech companies in SF and then randomly and unpredictably granted breaks to the ones that had the best lobbying.

> accompanied by some weak rhetoric about supporting local communities

And billions of dollars sent into homeless slush funds for activists and nonprofits with no accountability for how the money was spent.

> no oversight confirming any real local benefits

Accurate

> And billions of dollars sent into homeless slush funds for activists and nonprofits with no accountability for how the money was spent.

I'm not claiming that the city spends responsibly, but next month SF will at least vote on a ballot measure which would create an oversight commission for HSH spending and programs, and require audits of services provided. We have an opportunity to improve things.

No, the city is a notoriously high tax, hostile and bureaucratic hellscape when it comes to running any kind of business. Just because they are corrupt and hand out a few token tax breaks to their richest cronies doesn't make them business friendly.

I don't know, on balance, which way it tilts, but 2018 Prop-C is an example of such antagonizing. At least one company moved HQ out of the city for that reason.

https://ballotpedia.org/San_Francisco,_California,_Propositi....

Did it at least work? I assume that homelessness in SF is now a thing of unhappy memory...

With all of that space, San Francisco could solve the homeless problem with the stroke of a pen. Turn these spaces into shelters, community outreach centers, and needle exchanges.

Are you suggesting that an American city could socialize a large chunk of its private real estate with the stroke of a pen or that landlords are waiting for some legal change to turn their office/retail space into homeless shelters and needle exchanges?

The 5th Amendment of the US Constitution specifically permits eminent domain with "just compensation" so yes an American city could take a large chunk of its private real estate under eminent domain and put it to "public use". Converting vacant office buildings into homeless shelters would absolutely count as a "public use".

Buying some of the most expensive real estate in the world with “just compensation” seems like it’s more than a stroke of a pen.

Further, the court cases this will bring will take _forever_ because one side will be extremely well funded and the other side will be the city of San Francisco. Not the stroke of a pen.

Boston has done it, I worked with an affordable housing group that worked on this stuff. The difference was these were largely undeveloped lots, not office buildings.

That seems like a big distinction…

I'm not sure if that was sarcasm (especially the part with needle exchange), but it is San Francisco so yes, it could.

I would rather free housing go to people in need who work for a living

Why not? Theyve laid waste to hundreds of thousands of homes to build freeways with a stroke of a pen before.

No. The problem is deeper than that. Adding more housing and more services will help but don't kid yourself into thinking that these things are free or that they will magically make the problems disappear. People will still be on drugs. People will still have mental health problems. People will still commit crimes. The amount of work required is bigger than any writing implement can accomplish.

With just a little initiative, the whole city could be like the TL.

You mean the stroke of a pen and a massive amount of money (to buy the buildings, convert them to the legal standards for such spaces, manage the buildings, manage the programs, etc, etc.).

Induced demand just like roads.

While well intentioned, this would tank commercial and residential occupancy further, and SF is a uniquely bad location for that approach.

Sounds like a dream for a drug addict. Do heroin all day, get clean needles, breakfast and a place to sleep

Wow what a great original idea. Let's just turn the whole city into an unlivable hellscape like the Tenderloin!

Nope. after this even more people would move into SF increasing the homeless population and the demand for low income housing. Or do you actually believe that the majority of homeless people in SF grew up there?

What if I told you the manhattanization of downtown was never the dream of local San Franciscans and only a fleeting goal of elite-funded politicians who used job growth during their tenures as pols here to argue that they should be elected or appointed to state-level leadership? What if San Francisco got that Zombieland back, because to many San Franciscans, even a bustling business sector full of people wearing tech fleeces WAS a Zombieland?

Ok NIMBY.