Creating Utopia is expensive?

Actually, it’s a win-win for existing homeowners. If fewer new homes are built, then the existing home prices will go even higher. For the “homesteaders,” it’s gold. Especially if they don’t have children — a common situation in San Francisco.

It’s the ultimate “me” bill. Pure selfishness.

Solid point. Any rational review of per passenger mile costs indicates some form of transit (buses, Uber, jitneys, etc.) that uses the existing roads is FAR more cost effective than mass transit (a.k.a. rail).

Moreover, rail is forever — it’s not flexible once the capital costs are sunk.

To make such an expensive, inefficient, inflexible outlay in this constantly changing tech age is madness.

If people were not willing to buy or rent for those prices then they would HAVE to come down..

So Cal resident. havent been up there in a few years, but have many, many times in the past. Beautiful, expensive, never found it that filthy or dangerous. (Less so than some big cities)

But I still HATE the place…….the sneering, smug, self-righteous uber-liberals that infest the place make me vomit.

Richie hit it. SF is a toilet, filthy, dangerous for respectable visitors, expensive, run down, a dump….so there.

All the EXISTING homeowners will find their homes appreciating because of these additional housing fees put on the NEW homes and apartments. All will get windfall profits upon sale, and likely won’t pay more property taxes during the holding period (thanks to Prop 13, which liberals supposedly hate).

That being said, I take perverse delight in progressives making their cosmopolitan berg a “gated” community — pricing homes and rents out of the reach of most people. Except, of course, those “poor” folks who win the lottery for heavily subsidized housing — and then carefully remain poor forever (negative incentives to improve their earning power).

Screw the middle class. San Franciscans want only the rich and the poor residing in their town.