Re:Dropbox handing over 25% of San Francisco HQ back to land...
by BenFranklin100 on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:42AM
(#37964146)
Those ordinances are commonly called “Inclusionary Zoning” ordinances. Even their supporters acknowledge they frequently adversely affect housing production. It’s effectively a tax on new homes.
Re:Dropbox handing over 25% of San Francisco HQ back to land...
by anon35 on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:20AM
(#37964043)
See also good podcast dedicated to this topic: Why can't we turn all the empty offices into apartment buildings?
https://pjvogt.substack.com/p/why-cant-we-turn-all-the-empty...
Re:Dropbox handing over 25% of San Francisco HQ back to land...
by devoutsalsa on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:29AM
(#37964089)
When I moved to San Francisco for the 2nd time in 2016, I was looking at bottom of the barrel apartments. One unit was a studio in an office building, but without a bathroom. For some reason the shared office bathroom had a shower. I was imagining it walking down the hall in my underpants while accountants and lawyers came to work.
Re:Dropbox handing over 25% of San Francisco HQ back to land...
by oldbbsnickname on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:34AM
(#37964111)
Was it cheaper than living in a storage unit or someone's rented closet?
I kid you not that people in SF both live in storage units (with power, cooking, fridge, and TV) and rent walk-in closets to live in.
Re:Dropbox handing over 25% of San Francisco HQ back to land...
by cj on Saturday October 21, 2023 @12:41AM
(#37964144)
[delayed]
Re:Dropbox handing over 25% of San Francisco HQ back to land...
by devoutsalsa on Saturday October 21, 2023 @03:01AM
(#37964718)
Haha, I don't remember exactly, but I do recall that everything below about $1600/month was a little too weird.
I recall a story about a month ago that a firm said they would be willing to have undertaken that cost for a tower in downtown San Francisco but the city, and it's wisdom, had passed an ordinance that required a certain percentage of new housing to go for low income people and thus for low rent and when that was baked in it made absolutely no sense (or cents).
So not only do you have the trouble of the cost of conversion, you also have the trouble of meddling do-gooders messing things up (because one of the easiest ways to reduce rent for everybody is to slam a lot of supply into the market)